How John Calvin Made me a Catholic
Jun 1st, 2010 | By David Anders | Category: Featured ArticlesI once heard a Protestant pastor preach a “Church History” sermon. He began with Christ and the apostles, dashed through the book of Acts, skipped over the Catholic Middle Ages and leaped directly to Wittenberg, 1517. From Luther he hopped to the English revivalist John Wesley, crossed the Atlantic to the American revivals and slid home to his own Church, Birmingham, Alabama, early 1990s. Cheers and singing followed him to the plate. The congregation loved it.
Portrait of Young John Calvin
Unknown Flemish artist
Espace Ami Lullin of the Bibliothèque de Genève
I loved it, too. I grew up in an Evangelical Church in the 1970s immersed in the myth of the Reformation. I was sure that my Church preached the gospel, which we received, unsullied, from the Reformers. After college, I earned a doctorate in Church history so I could flesh out the story and prove to all the poor Catholics that they were in the wrong Church. I never imagined my own founder, the Protestant Reformer John Calvin, would point me to the Catholic faith.
I was raised a Presbyterian, the Church that prides itself on Calvinist origins, but I didn’t care much about denominations. My Church practiced a pared-down, Bible-focused, born-again spirituality shared by most Evangelicals. I went to a Christian college and then a seminary where I found the same attitude. Baptists, Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Charismatics worshiped and studied side-by-side, all committed to the Bible but at odds on how to interpret it. But our differences didn’t bother us. Disagreements over sacraments, Church structures, and authority were less important to us than a personal relationship with Christ and fighting the Catholic Church. This is how we understood our common debt to the Reformation.
When I finished seminary, I moved on to Ph.D. studies in Reformation history. My focus was on John Calvin (1509-1564), the French Reformer who made Geneva, Switzerland into a model Protestant city. I chose Calvin not just because of my Presbyterian background, but because most American Protestants have some relationship to him. The English Puritans, the Pilgrim Fathers, Jonathan Edwards and the “Great Awakening” – all drew on Calvin and then strongly influenced American religion. My college and seminary professors portrayed Calvin as a master theologian, our theologian. I thought that if I could master Calvin, I would really know the faith.
Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected. To begin with, I decided that I really didn’t like Calvin. I found him proud, judgmental and unyielding. But more importantly, I discovered that Calvin upset my Evangelical view of history. I had always assumed a perfect continuity between the Early Church, the Reformation and my Church. The more I studied Calvin, however, the more foreign he seemed, the less like Protestants today. This, in turn, caused me to question the whole Evangelical storyline: Early Church – Reformation – Evangelical Christianity, with one seamless thread running straight from one to the other. But what if Evangelicals really weren’t faithful to Calvin and the Reformation? The seamless thread breaks. And if it could break once, between the Reformation and today, why not sooner, between the Early Church and the Reformation? Was I really sure the thread had held even that far?
Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again spirituality, private interpretation of Scripture, a broad-minded approach to denominations – Calvin opposed them all. I discovered that his concerns were vastly different, more institutional, even more Catholic. Although he rejected the authority of Rome, there were things about the Catholic faith he never thought about leaving. He took for granted that the Church should have an interpretive authority, a sacramental liturgy and a single, unified faith.
These discoveries faced me with important questions. Why should Calvin treat these “Catholic things” with such seriousness? Was he right in thinking them so important? And if so, was he justified in leaving the Catholic Church? What did these discoveries teach me about Protestantism? How could my Church claim Calvin as a founder, and yet stray so far from his views? Was the whole Protestant way of doing theology doomed to confusion and inconsistency?
Understanding the Calvinist Reformation
Calvin was a second-generation Reformer, twenty-six years younger than Martin Luther (1483-1546). This meant that by the time he encountered the Reformation, it had already split into factions. In Calvin’s native France, there was no royal support for Protestantism and no unified leadership. Lawyers, humanists, intellectuals, artisans and craftsman read Luther’s writings, as well as the Scriptures, and adapted whatever they liked.
This variety struck Calvin as a recipe for disaster. He was a lawyer by training, and always hated any kind of social disorder. In 1549, he wrote a short work (Advertissement contre l’astrologie) in which he complained about this Protestant diversity:
Every state [of life] has its own Gospel, which they forge for themselves according to their appetites, so that there is as great a diversity between the Gospel of the court, and the Gospel of the justices and lawyers, and the Gospel of merchants, as there is between coins of different denominations.
I began to grasp the difference between Calvin and his descendants when I discovered his hatred of this theological diversity. Calvin was drawn to Luther’s theology, but he complained about the “crass multitude” and the “vulgar plebs” who turned Luther’s doctrine into an excuse for disorder. He wrote his first major work, The Institutes of the Christian Religion (1536), in part to address this problem.
Calvin got an opportunity to put his plans into action when he moved to Geneva, Switzerland. He first joined the Reformation in Geneva in 1537, when the city had only recently embraced Protestantism. Calvin, who had already begun to write and publish on theology, was unsatisfied with their work. Geneva had abolished the Mass, kicked out the Catholic clergy, and professed loyalty to the Bible, but Calvin wanted to go further. His first request to the city council was to impose a common confession of faith (written by Calvin) and to force all citizens to affirm it.
Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners. He also persuaded the council to enforce a set of “Ecclesiastical Ordinances” that defined the authority of the Church, stated the religious obligations of the laity, and imposed an official liturgy. Church attendance was mandatory. Contradicting the ministers was outlawed as blasphemy. Calvin’s Institutes would eventually be declared official doctrine.
Calvin’s lifelong goal was to gain the right to excommunicate “unworthy” Church members. The city council finally granted this power in 1555 when French immigration and local scandal tipped the electorate in his favor. Calvin wielded it frequently. According to historian William Monter, one in fifteen citizens was summoned before the Consistory between 1559 and 1569, and up to one in twenty five was actually excommunicated.1 Calvin used this power to enforce his single vision of Christianity and to punish dissent.
A Calvinist Discovers John Calvin
I studied Calvin for years before the real significance of what I was learning began to sink in. But I finally realized that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition. Nothing brought this home to me with more clarity than his fight with the former Carmelite monk, Jerome Bolsec.
In 1551, Bolsec, a physician and convert to Protestantism, entered Geneva and attended a lecture on theology. The topic was Calvin’s doctrine of predestination, the teaching that God predetermines the eternal fate of every soul. Bolsec, who believed firmly in “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” did not like what he heard. He thought it made God into a tyrant. When he stood up to challenge Calvin’s views, he was arrested and imprisoned.
What makes Bolsec’s case interesting is that it quickly evolved into a referendum on Church authority and the interpretation of Scripture. Bolsec, just like most Evangelicals today, argued that he was a Christian, that he had the Holy Spirit and that, therefore, he had as much right as Calvin to interpret the Bible. He promised to recant if Calvin would only prove his doctrine from the Scriptures. But Calvin would have none of it. He ridiculed Bolsec as a trouble maker (Bolsec generated a fair amount of public sympathy), rejected his appeal to Scripture, and called on the council to be harsh. He wrote privately to a friend that he wished Bolsec were “rotting in a ditch.”2
What most Evangelicals today don’t realize is that Calvin never endorsed private or lay interpretation of the Bible. While he rejected Rome’s claim to authority, he made striking claims for his own authority. He taught that the “Reformed” pastors were successors to the prophets and apostles, entrusted with the task of authoritative interpretation of the Scriptures. He insisted that laypeople should suspend judgment on difficult matters and “hold unity with the Church.”3
Calvin took very seriously the obligation of the laity to submit and obey. “Contradicting the ministers” was one of the most common reasons to be called before the Consistory and penalties could be severe. One image in particular sticks in my mind. April, 1546. Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was forced to crawl to the door of the Bishop’s residence, with his head uncovered and a torch in his hand. He begged the forgiveness of God, of the ministers and of the city council. His crime? He contradicted the preaching of Calvin. The council, at Calvin’s urging, had decreed Ameaux’s public humiliation as punishment.
Ameaux was not alone. Throughout the 1540s and 1550s, Geneva’s city council repeatedly outlawed speaking against the ministers or their theology. Furthermore, when Calvin gained the right to excommunicate, he did not hesitate to use it against this “blasphemy.” Evangelicals today, unaccustomed to the use of excommunication, may underestimate the severity of the penalty, but Calvin understood it in the most severe terms. He repeatedly taught that the excommunicated were “estranged from the Church, and thus, from Christ.”4
If Calvin’s ideas on Church authority were a surprise to me, his thoughts on the sacraments were shocking. Unlike Evangelicals, who treat the theology of the sacraments as one of the “non-essentials,” Calvin thought they were of the utmost importance. In fact, he taught that a proper understanding of the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. This was the thesis of his very first theological treatise in French (Petit traicté de la Sainte Cène, 1541). Frustrated by Protestant disagreement over the Eucharist, Calvin wrote the text in an attempt to unify the movement around one single doctrine.
Evangelicals are used to finding assurance in their “personal relationship with Christ,” and not through membership in any Church or participation in any ritual. Calvin, however, taught that the Eucharist provides “undoubted assurance of eternal life.”5 And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”6.
Calvin understood baptism in much the same way. He never taught the Evangelical doctrine that one is “born again” through personal conversion. Instead, he associated regeneration with baptism and taught that to neglect baptism was to refuse salvation. He also allowed no diversity over the manner of its reception. Anabaptists in Geneva (those who practiced adult baptism) were jailed and forced to repent. Calvin taught that Anabaptists, by refusing the sacrament to their children, had placed themselves outside the faith.
Calvin once persuaded an Anabaptist named Herman to enter the Reformed Church. His description of the event leaves no doubt about the difference between Calvin and the modern Evangelical. Calvin wrote:
Herman has, if I am not mistaken, in good faith returned to the fellowship of the Church. He has confessed that outside the Church there is no salvation, and that the true Church is with us. Therefore, it was defection when he belonged to a sect separated from it.7
Evangelicals don’t understand this type of language. They are accustomed to treating “the Church” as a purely spiritual reality, represented across denominations or wherever “true believers” are gathered. This was not Calvin’s view. His was “the true Church,” marked off by infant baptism, outside of which there was no salvation.
Making Sense of Evangelicalism
Studying Calvin raised important questions about my Evangelical identity. How could I reject as unimportant issues that my own founder considered essential? I had blithely and confidently dismissed baptism, Eucharist, and the Church itself as “merely symbolic,” “purely spiritual” or, ultimately, unnecessary. In seminary, too, I found an environment where professors disagreed entirely over these issues and no one cared! With no final court of appeal, we had devolved into a “lowest common denominator” theology.
Church history taught me that this attitude was a recent development. John Calvin had high expectations for the unity and catholicity of the faith, and for the centrality of Church and sacrament. But Calvinism couldn’t deliver it. Outside of Geneva, without the force of the state to impose one version, Calvinism itself splintered into factions. In her book Orthodoxies in Massachusetts: Rereading American Puritanism, historian Janice Knight details how the process unfolded very early in American Calvinism. 8
It is not surprising that by the eighteenth century, leading Calvinist Churchmen on both sides of the Atlantic had given up on the quest for complete unity. One new approach was to stress the subjective experience of “new birth” (itself a novel doctrine of Puritan origins) as the only necessary concern. The famous revivalist George Whitefield typified this view, going so far as to insist that Christ did not want agreement in other matters. He said:
It was best to preach the new birth, and the power of godliness, and not to insist so much on the form: for people would never be brought to one mind as to that; nor did Jesus Christ ever intend it.9
Since the eighteenth century, Calvinism has devolved more and more into a narrow set of questions about the nature of salvation. Indeed, in most people’s minds the word Calvinism implies only the doctrine of predestination. Calvin himself has become mainly a shadowy symbol, a myth that Evangelicals call upon only to support a spurious claim to historical continuity.
The greatest irony in my historical research was realizing that Evangelicalism, far from being the direct descendant of Calvin, actually represents the failure of Calvinism. Whereas Calvin spent his life in the quest for doctrinal unity, modern Evangelicalism is rooted in the rejection of that quest. Historian Alister McGrath notes that the term “Evangelical,” which has circulated in Christianity for centuries, took on its peculiar modern sense only in the twentieth century, with the founding of the National Association of Evangelicals (1942). This society was formed to allow coordinated public action on the part of disparate groups that agreed on “the new birth,” but disagreed on just about everything else.10
A Calvinist Discovers Catholicism
I grew up believing that Evangelicalism was “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” I learned from Protestant Church history that it was hardly older than Whitefield, and certainly not the faith of the Protestant Reformers. What to do? Should I go back to the sixteenth century and become an authentic Calvinist? I already knew that Calvin himself, for all his insistence on unity and authority, had been unable to deliver the goods. His own followers descended into anarchy and individualism.
I realized instead that Calvin was part of the problem. He had insisted on the importance of unity and authority, but had rejected any rational or consistent basis for that authority. He knew that Scripture totally alone, Scripture interpreted by each individual conscience, was a recipe for disaster. But his own claim to authority was perfectly arbitrary. Whenever he was challenged, he simply appealed to his own conscience, or to his subjective experience, but he denied that right to Bolsec and others. As a result, Calvin became proud and censorious, brutal with his enemies, and intolerant of dissent. In all my reading of Calvin, I don’t recall him ever apologizing for a mistake or admitting an error.
It eventually occurred to me that Calvin’s attitude contrasted sharply with what I had found in the greatest Catholic theologians. Many of them were saints, recognized for their heroic charity and humility. Furthermore, I knew from reading them, especially St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Teresa of Avila and St. Francis de Sales, that they denied any personal authority to define doctrine. They deferred willingly, even joyfully, to the authority of Pope and council. They could maintain the biblical ideal of doctrinal unity (1 Corinthians 1:10), without claiming to be the source of that unity.
These saints also challenged the stereotypes about Catholics that I had grown up with. Evangelicals frequently assert that they are the only ones to have “a personal relationship with Christ.” Catholics, with their rituals and institutions, are supposed to be alienated from Christ and Scripture. I found instead men and women who were single-minded in their devotion to Christ and inebriated with His grace.
The Catholic theologian who had the greatest impact on me was undoubtedly St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). All of my life, I heard the claim that “the Early Church” had been Protestant and Evangelical. My seminary professors and even Calvin and Luther always pointed to St. Augustine as their great Early Church hero. When I finally dug into Augustine, however, I discovered a thorough-going Catholicism. Augustine loved Scripture and spoke profoundly about God’s grace, but he understood these in the fully Catholic sense. Augustine destroyed the final piece of my Evangelical view of history.
In the end, I began to see that everything good about Evangelicalism was already present in the Catholic Church – the warmth and devotion of Evangelical spirituality, the love of Scripture and even, to some extent, the Evangelical tolerance for diversity. Catholicism has always tolerated schools of thought, various theologies and different liturgies. But unlike Evangelicalism, the Catholic Church has a logical and consistent way to distinguish the essential from the non-essential. The Church’s Magisterium, established by Christ (Matthew 16:18; Matthew 28:18-20), has provided that source of unity that Calvin sought to replace.
One of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that it fully satisfied my desire for historical rootedness. I began to study history believing in that continuity of faith and trying desperately to find it. Even when I thought I had found it in the Reformation, I still had to contend with the enormous gulf of the Catholic Middle Ages. Now, thanks to what Calvin taught me, there are no more missing links. On November 16, 2003 I finally embraced the faith “once for all delivered to the Saints.” I entered the Catholic Church.
- “The Consistory of Geneva, 1559-1569,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 38 (1976): 467-484. [↩]
- Letter to Madame de Cany, 1552. [↩]
- Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. J. T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960: 3.2.3, 4.3.4. [↩]
- Institutes 4.12.9. [↩]
- Institutes 4.17.32. [↩]
- Institutes 4.17.17; 4.17.19. [↩]
- Letters of John Calvin, trans. M. Gilchrist, ed. J.Bonnet, New York: Burt Franklin, 1972, I: 110-111. [↩]
- Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994. [↩]
- Cited in Mark A. Noll, The Rise of Evangelicalism: The Age of Edwards, Whitefield and the Wesleys. Downers Grove: IVP, 2003, 14. [↩]
- Evangelicalism and the Future of Christianity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1995, 17-23. [↩]
Thank you, Dr. Anders, for this excellent article. Having converted to the Catholic faith from Calvinism only fairly recently, I am still learning what I left behind, more and more, as my “new” vantage point allows me to more clearly see what Calvinism really entails, then and now. This article helped me in that regard. I look forward to your appearance on EWTN Live on 6/23.
Blessings and Peace. KB
Pretty typical narrative…Protestantism is “doomed to confusion and inconsistency.” Enter Rome. It should be noted, however, that there’s a significant movement within the Reformed/Presbyterian world that is fully aware of the differences between Reformational Protestantism and post-Awakening American Evangelicalism. The folks at Westminster West are some of the leaders of this renewed confessional catholicism, which has adherents going back to the “Old Lights” of the 18th century who protested the Awakening and the Mercersburg school of the 19th century (Philip Schaff, J. W. Nevin) who heavily criticized the overly-pietist strain within American Protestant religion. As it happens, I stand more with the Free Church tradition, but I think it’s interesting to note how someone like Dr. Anders has followed a path almost identical to R. Scott Clark or Mike Horton, yet the latter ended-up with a renewed emphasis on the catholicity of their Reformed churches, yet Anders ended-up embracing Rome — both paths were in reaction to the instability of an excessive individualism within (certain segments of) contemporary Protestantism.
On an entirely different note, I found it a bit difficult to take Anders seriously when he said:
I found him [Calvin] proud, judgmental and unyielding.
Seriously? I can’t remember the number of times, while reading the Institutes, that I’ve been amazed by the spiritual depth and humility of Calvin, not to mention the riches found in his commentaries on Scripture. Calvin could certainly, at times, be unyielding in his position as a Genevan reformer (not surprising, considering the precarious situation of the Reformation and the threats from without and within), but his dogmatic and exegetical work are models of Christian discipleship.
It’s obvious from the article that Dr. Anders’ familiarity with Calvin’s personality goes a lot deeper than just reading the Institutes and Commentaries. Why would we expect to get to know a person from reading systematic theological treatises, anyway? Have you read the letters or anything else? I just ask because your response is the same as what I always hear when it is suggested that Calvin was not the paragon of Christian charity. Historical actions are parried with references to treatises. Well, I know plenty of people who can make themselves look and sound really pious when they need to, both evangelicals who can sway in the dark to soft rock “worship” music with their eyes closed and hands in the air, then spew vile gossip an hour later, and Reformed folk who can talk pious theology like Calvin but will tear you to pieces if you disagree with them.
Personally I’d like to thank Dr. Anders for opening up the discussion with primary sources and secondary scholarship that I didn’t even know existed.
Having re-read that post, I noticed that I made too much of a dichotomy between what a treatise can say and what other sources can say. Obviously it’s not the case that everyone is just fake when they write some kind of official document. My point was that those sources shouldn’t be given some kind of “primary” status through which other sources are relegated to insignificance. They should be read together, especially since it’s a lot easier to speak piously than to act piously.
David,
If Anders is going to impugn Calvin as “proud, judgmental, and unyielding,” then he needs to explain the ways in which this pride is expressed in his life as a reformer and a scholar and, fundamentally, as a disciple of Christ. Otherwise, it’s just a cheap shot and a caricature. I have no problem recognizing Calvin’s character flaws — I have plenty myself — but amidst these faults the grace of God prevailed in some marvelous ways. I’m not interested in portraying Calvin, or any man, as “a paragon of Christian charity,” but rather as a vessel of God’s mercy.
I’ve recently read Bruce Gordon’s biography of Calvin and the typical Reformation scholarship of, e.g., Heiko Oberman and Steven Ozment. I read some of Calvin’s correspondence for my class on the Reformation as an undergraduate (at a large, secular university). I’m no expert, to be sure, but I’m hardly ignorant either.
Kevin D (#2):
I notice that Dr Anders described some of the measures Calvin actually took in Geneva to punish and suppress dissent. Are you prepared to justify them? I also notice that many Protestants condemn similar measures that Catholic authorities once took to punish and suppress dissent. Do you agree with those Protestants? If so, I’d love to see you try to explain how Calvin was justified in doing what Catholic prelates were unjustified in doing.
This is just further support for an argument I’ve been making for years. It is evident that intelligent, well-informed people can study the same dataset, and even be disturbed by the same problems, and yet come to mutually incompatible theological conclusions about how to interpret the data so as to solve the problems. The question then arises: how is one to tell the difference between conclusions that are only personal opinions, and conclusions that actually express the assent of faith as distinct from opinion? My argument is that, if the Protestant hermeneutical paradigm were correct, then one could not tell the difference, whereas if the Catholic HP is correct, one can. And I take it as self-evident that such is a reason to prefer the Catholic HP.
Best,
Mike
Actually, I thought it was anything but typical. Most converts (and Calvinists) I know seem to have glossed over Calvin, but it’s obvious that Dr. Anders knows his subject, both on a professional and a personal level. Anyway, his admission that he found he didn’t like Calvin seems almost secondary, doesn’t it?
And while I do think that Protestantism is doomed to confusion, I think the point of this article is that Protestantism is not doomed so much to inconsistency as it is to an extreme reductionism that squeezes out anything other than “We both love Jesus” from gospel unity. What we have in Calvin is an early indicator of where Protestantism was headed. I think he demonstrates that well, generally-speaking.
Thanks for your response, Kevin. Just so you know, I didn’t mean to imply that you hadn’t read anything else by/about Calvin. It was an honest question and I can tell from your answer that you’re probably more well-read than I am on the specifics of Calvin’s life. On the other hand, since Dr. Anders focused on Calvin in his PhD in Reformation History, I’m going to assume he’s read (and written) more than both of us on the subject. In this relatively short and basic article he made mention of particular historical incidents and quoted from particular texts in support of his claim that Calvin was often proud and unyielding, yet you didn’t attempt to refute any of them in your original response; you merely quoted and condemned the conclusion without evaluating the premises. Which of the historical examples mentioned in the article do you disagree with?
Dr and Mrs Anders, welcome home.
While I was not a Calvinist of any stripe, I remember reading the Institutes and then comparing them with the biography of Calvin and the history of Geneva during his reign. I did that in part because I understood that one is supposed to “watch what I do, not what I say,” although one can hope that the words and deeds match.
I had the impression then and have found nothing to contradict the impression that Geneva was a police state with a fairly high level of control invested in those who ran that jail. Conformity – with great peer pressure backed by punishment – was the watchword. Obedience to Calvin and then the ministers/theology. (In reading the article and again noting the punishments, I was reminded of Article 58:10, anti-Soviet agitation, as the basis for punishment in a later police state.)
I was not impressed by Calvin’s theology, and I was even less impressed by his efforts. He appeared to be the enemy of the good, rather a herald thereof.
That kind of recognition by an American of Calvinist leanings with an evangelical background would be a problem. You want to love God freely and, thinking he is Calvin your ally, determine he is in fact Calvin your enemy, who intends you to be Pinnochio while he pulls the strings. Calvin was proud, judgmental and unyielding. A perfect temperment for a dictator.
Fortunately Rome did enter the argument as a proper disputant, with birthdays all the way back to the beginning as the Church instituted by Christ Jesus and given the authority to do what it must to bring redemption to the human race. The saints noted above evidenced obedience by desire out of love, no strings attached, and the comparison with the reformers was (and continues to be) staggering.
Isn’t Bolsec the one who was in trouble everywhere- not just Geneva? Isn’t he the one who wrote a biography on Calvin making him out to be vile, promiscuous with both men and women? Hasn’t this person been sufficiently been discredited? How did Bolsec gain sympathy from Dr. Anders?
Ron,
It doesn’t appear to me that Dr. Anders is showing sympathy toward Bolsec, rather painting Bolsec and Calvin in the same light (two people who claimed to have hold of the Holy Spirit and held their individual interpretation of Scripture as valid, though they were mutually exclusive). It appears to me that Dr. Anders is using Bolsec’s case to show Calvin’s “dark side”, not from Bolsec’s biography, but from objective history and Calvin’s mouth himself. If Dr. Anders has converted to Catholicism, it should be an indicator that he is no apologist for Bolsec either.
Dr. Anders,
I enjoyed the article. Your points about the Reformation theology of the 16th century not being the same as modern day evangelical spirituality were good and valid, but how do you get from realizing that to making the move to Rome? The realization of that has caused some Presbyterians to move to a more catholic view of the Church. And not a few Lutheran and Anglican churches are still orthodox and still holding to the Reformation theology as articulated by the Reformers. How would you view them?
On the other hand, in support of your point (which is that Protestantism must either have arbitrary authoritative interpretation, or no authoritative interpretation at all), consider this quotation:
Upon first seeing this, the reader might suspect it to be from a Roman Catholic document from the time of the Reformation. In fact, this is a quote from the “Decree Against Toleration,” published by the Reformed Church of Scotland in 1649. The irony is palpable, especially in this quote, but also throughout the entire document (which can be found here: https://www.reformed.org/ecclesiology/index.html). The theology of the Church of Scotland was, admittedly, founded in a great part on the theology of a man who did exactly what they condemned–John Calvin went against the Church’s opinion and interpreted Scripture as he wished. It just goes to show that nearly everyone (aside from men like Chillingworth) before the rise of evangelicalism did realize that there has to be an interpretive authority–but Protestantism didn’t want Rome to occupy that seat of authority.
Pax Christi,
Spencer
Bolsec converted to Catholicism too. FWIW.
Ron, in what way and by whom has Bolsec been discredited? Discredited how? Are you claiming that Dr. Anders is wrong and that Bolsec was not imprisoned for disagreeing with John Calvin’s interpretation of the Scriptures? If that’s the case, can you produce evidence of this?
Spencer (#12):
You are quite right. And I think that points up the fundamental problem with the Reformation at its very beginnings.
The so-called “Colloquy of Marburg” held in 1527 among the major Reformers of the time broke up in acrimony. The ample scholarship on that event shows that the broad outlines of the split between Lutheran, Reformed, and free-church Protestantism were evident even then. Thus a few years later (1530), Casper Schwenckfeld could cynically note that “the Papists damn the Lutherans; the Lutherans damn the Zwinglians; the Zwinglians damn the Anabaptists and the Anabaptists damn all others.” By the end of the seventeenth century many others saw that it was not possible on the basis of Scripture alone to build up a detailed orthodoxy commanding general assent. (A.N.S. Lane, “Scripture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey”, Vox Evangelica, Volume IX – 1975, pp. 44, 45). The Lutherans, the Zwinglians, even the Anabaptists each recognized the need for an ecclesial interpretive authority; but because they eschewed ecclesial infallibility, and each claimed authority on the basis of mutually incompatible interpretations of Scripture, they left themselves absolutely no way to adjudicate between competing claims to such authority. In other words, by rejecting the sacramental magisterial authority claimed by the Catholic Church in virtue of apostolic succession, as that concept was traditionally understood, they left themselves unable to bring off the very thing whose necessity they took for granted. All they could do was assert the primacy of their own consciences and hence the utter rightness of their own opinions, as if they had the sort of authority they all rejected. We see the results today, but they were already evident centuries ago.
Best,
Mike
Tim,
No disagreement with the fact of his imprisonment. He was considered a trouble-maker in many other cities as well. He wrote some pretty far-fetched things about Calvin and others. My only point is that imprisoning Bolsec, knowing more of the history, does not make him just like any other evangelical of today. Objectively, from history- he was a trouble-maker and I am sure Calvin was probably not the only one wishing him in a ditch.
ZZZZzzzzzzZZZZZZZzzzzzz…
This article is so far from the published primary source material on Calvin and the Genevan Consistory that I must say YOU GUYS CAN DO BETTER THAN THIS!
Aside from the fact that this site itself is dishonest in attempting to appear as something other than what it is – a propaganda engine to convert folks to Romanism – the above post just represents more historical revisionism with a jaundiced Roman eye typical of the sort of half-informed historically inaccurate mish mash that makes up the main of Catholic apologetics on the Internet.
So you have one more wishy-washy Evangelical academic who has found his way to Rome – so what? Is this not merely evidence that even the brightest of men in the worst of environments rationalize the idolatry they suppose in their hearts and find a way to that which they want regardless of the truth of the matter? If Dr. Anders account and story was really objective in his look at Calvin, would he really have the unmitigated gall to call Calvin proud and judgmental? Can you not see that this is hardly an account that looks at the history without undue bias?
It is amusing to see the difference between those who convert from Romanism to Protestantism, and those who convert from Protestantism to Romanism.
The first group – and I’ve seen quite a few of those – bases their conversion to Protestantism because they found some objective principles of interpretation. Very seldom you see a convert to Protestantism that bases their conversion on some kind of personal feelings or preferences – it is usually a doctrinally motivated conversion.
This article – and I find it amusing – talks mainly about the personal preferences of the author. Here what he says at the conclusion of the article:
“One of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that it fully satisfied my desire for historical rootedness.”
Notice the words: “…it fully satisfied my desire…” It is about personal satisfaction, it is not about objective truths. The rest of the article is exactly that: An attempt – and very lame attempt, I must say – at rationalizing a decision that was made on entirely subjective, emotional, anti-intellectual basis. It is strange that a person would be proud of being so self-centered that to make his personal preferences a factor in choosing his religion (whatever happened to objective truth?) but it is even more strange that the Roman church would accept and promote such conversion. It only comes to prove that the Roman converts are moved by emotionalism, not very different from Charismatics, Manicheans, and other anti-intellectual groups. Those that value the truth of the Bible over any personal preferences have only choice: Reformed Christianity.
Make that banishment.
Ron – that’s cool I’m not disagreeing with you. I’ve been quite a trouble-maker in my day as well. I don’t know what it means in his case because I don’t know the history. I mean if he was breaking the law – he should have been thrown in prison I agree. But was that what he was thrown in there for or was it something else? Dr. Anders makes it sound like Bolsec was put into prison for disagreeing with Calvin. Troublemaker or not, I think it makes Dr. Anders’ point (if that’s true). But maybe it’s not – is that not what he was thrown in prison for?
Bojidar Marinov,
With all respect, brother, this sounds uncharitable towards Dr. Anders. To say that his move to Rome was wrong is one thing, and to say that there is a little bit of triumphalism in this article which might have been left out is one thing, but to impute an entirely emotionally based conversion to Dr. Anders is unfounded.
I am currently at a period of being undecided about ecclesiology and am working through the process of discernment. While I agree with you that sometimes nowadays too much stress is put on the emotional aspects of conversion stories to Rome, I don’t think you find that in this article–which focuses mostly on objective historical and theological argumentation–and certainly not on C2C as a whole.
I am grateful to the writers of C2C for their desire to seek the unity of all Christians. May we all be brought into one fold, under one Shepherd.
Pax Christi,
Spencer
Spencer,
Thank you for that. I was afraid that this combox was headed for disaster. Hopefully, the tone will come down a notch or two.
Spencer,
“C2C” is not about the unity of all Christians – that is merely codespeak for saying that what C2C and its authors desire is for everyone to “convert” to Rome. This is why real ecumenism with Rome is impossible. It is either the Roman way or the highway – and this exclusivist position is hardly in line either with the reality of Christ and His Church spread across all sorts of communions and lands and the actuality that there are Christians outside of Rome’s walls.
But, as I said earlier, I just wish you fellows would be blatantly honest with those you speak to about these things instead of inferring that what you are really about is unity among all brothers. The truth is you are not interested in any unity except that which would be present from everyone capitulating their position and practice in favor of yours. At root, this project is dishonest in the extreme and it is only the uninformed that will buy what you are selling. But, that is what wolves do – parade as sheep for the sake of deception.
Spencer, my words may sound “uncharitable,” but can that be a reason for not saying what is obvious from the very words of the article? The author ends the article with what he believes is “one of the most satisfying things,” and it is that some “desire” of his has been satisfied. Since when, I ask, is satisfaction of personal desires the standard for discerning God’s truth? Is it possible that sometimes God’s truth is emotionally or intellectually “unsatisfactory” because of our fallen nature? (Not that the truth of God itself is imperfect or unsatisfactory.)
What the author has done is he has taken his own desires and lusts for his standard for judging the truth – by his own admission, note that, not by my judgment. Don’t kill the messenger, I am only pointing to a fact in the very article itself. I am not being “uncharitable,” I am only pointing to what the author himself says about himself. And I am commenting on it.
And I don’t understand why Joe June had to make the comment above: “I was afraid that this combox was headed for disaster. Hopefully, the tone will come down a notch or two.” I find this very offensive and un-Christian. Just because I disagree with the author of the article doesn’t make my comment “disastrous” or “high notch.” But since I meet such an attitude, I’ll leave y’all and not disturb your comfortable discussion anymore.
Tim,
On multiple occasions Bolsec disrupted speakers and publicly derided the ministers of Geneva. His arrest was due to disorderly conduct and his inappropriate speech against the ministers. This was not Calvin’s doing- Calvin did him banished from Geneva though. Although there was much debate about double predestination (which Bolsec took issue with), he was accused of Pelagianism and if I recall the RCC and every other orthodox Christian body thinks is wrong. Many in Geneva, as well as other Reformers (like Philipp Melachthon) thought Calvin was too harsh.
Bojidar,
The first group – and I’ve seen quite a few of those – bases their conversion to Protestantism because they found some objective principles of interpretation. Very seldom you see a convert to Protestantism that bases their conversion on some kind of personal feelings or preferences – it is usually a doctrinally motivated conversion.
Since we’re sharing anecdotes, almost every person I know or have heard of who leave the Catholic Church for Protestantism–and there are a lot of them–were poorly catechized in their faith and left the Church quite ignorant of what she actually teaches. An earnest Protestant sets them up with some questions their nominal Catholic understanding has no (or bad) answers for, then shows them with some Bible verses how their answer is wrong and why they need to be saved by Christ [through Protestant Christianity]. That’s 99% of conversions right there; doubt it? just look at South America.
The Protestants who convert to Catholicism, on the other hand, are strong in their faith and know Protestantism well. Usually they have tremendous prejudices against the Catholic Church which they must overcome, along with the dread of their Protestant friends, family, and community being hurt by their decision, not understanding it, and possibly ostracizing them. They convert only because they become convinced that the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the truth.
To Dr. Anders: excellent and insightful article. I’ve sent it to my Presbyterian friend.
Kevin, (re: #23)
Welcome to Called to Communion. If you look at the Posting Guidelines, you will see that ad hominems are not allowed here. I let both your comments through because if this is your first time posting here, you might not know about the rules for commenting here. The purpose of these rules is so that we can have free, open and fruitful discussion without fear of insults and personal attacks. That means that accusing others of dishonesty is not allowed here. Neither is calling other people “wolves.” If you think something in David’s post is false, feel free to explain which of his claims is false, and why they are false. So far, you have not refuted anything in David’s article.
As for Called to Communion’s mission, we do pray earnestly for the union of all Christians. And we believe that this unity can only be had by union with the successor of St. Peter. We have been open and clear about that from the beginning. We explained our mission in our first post here back on Ash Wednesday in 2009, in which we wrote:
A very short time later we explained the difference between two conceptions of ecumenicism, one built on compromise, and the other built on mutual pursuit of truth. Your notion of ecumenicism seems to be that everyone must compromise. But are you willing to compromise about your conception of ecumenicsm? If so, then we can dialogue about that, on the “Two Ecumenicisms” thread. If you want all Christians in the world to believe just like you, then your position is no more subject to compromise than that of the Catholic Church. But if you are fine with Christians not believing just like you, then you shouldn’t mind Christians believing that true unity only comes through full communion with the successor of St. Peter. Just because people believe true unity requires full communion with the successor of St. Peter does not mean that they are dishonest or “wolves.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Kevin (#23):
I have a question for you. I shall ask it because I really don’t know the answer, and knowing the answer is important if dialogue is to be possible.
You wrote:
My question is this: how do you reconcile that statement with the following statement from Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio (footnotes omitted; emphasis added):
Best,
Mike
Kevin,
“So you have one more wishy-washy Evangelical academic who has found his way to Rome – so what?”
I would say back to you: You are better than that. If we are going to have real discussion about such crucial and vital matters, we can do without comments like “wishy-washy” which serve no purpose. You have something to offer as way of a critique and we are all ears and in fact pray for genuine engagement in mutual pursuit of the truth.
Kevin,
I apologize for appearing to “pile-on”. As I was typing and away from my computer I see that Bryan already responded. I echo his words.
Devin’s experience matches up with mine, too. Most of the converts from either side to the other are converts from Protestant to Catholicism, not Catholicism to Protestantism. Of the people I know on both sides, those on the former are generally more educated and have had the most to lose, socially speaking, from making the change. Rather than being moved by “emotion” (whatever Bojidar means by that), they saw the futility of a world in which they bore the weight of wading through thousands of competing voices demanding allegiance to their personal opinions about the meaning of scripture. They were convinced by object evidence from scripture and history that the Reformation distinctives were novelties, and that the Catholic Church was founded by Christ and given the Spirit in such a way as to be able to teach the faith authoritatively in all generations.
Most of the converts from Catholicism to Protestantism are also very similar to the ones Devin described. They were poorly catechized and eventually led astray by fluffy, “emotional” promises about a deeper “personal relationship with Christ” and freedom from the “bondage” of “religion” and “formalism.” In this sense most of these converts have the same grievances with traditional Reformed Christianity that they have with Catholicism. They don’t know anything about doctrine. They despise doctrine. This, again, is an objection that they hold against both Catholicism and traditional Reformed Christianity.
But really, what does all this matter? What does our personal experience have to do with anything under discussion? I find it highly ironic that Mr. Marinov begins his criticism of what he perceives to be an article poisoned with emotionalism and “personal desire” with a description of his own personal experience among converts, as if his triumphal report of his experience is supposed to mean something to us. Then, when called out for the rank lack of charity in his comment (He mentions more than once how “amusing” he finds the article; then labels the article lame, emotional, subjective, and anti-intellectual without even responding to any its particular historical and theological observations; then he compares converts to Catholicism to Manichaeans and Charismatics) he says that the person who pointed it out is being un-Christian. Come on. All of us on this site, as Devin pointed out, love Christ and the scriptures, and we spent a lot of time studying and praying before making the decision to convert. Most of us have or are pursuing advanced degrees in theology, philosophy and/or history. Many of us are suffering considerable fallout because of our decision to convert to Catholicism. To compare us to Pentecostals who roll around on the ground and have laughing fits is uncharitable. It’s not your “disagreement with the author” that makes your post high notch, but your condescending rhetoric.
I will leave the business of “sharing anecdotes” to the others, and I will point to a very firmly established fact: The very words of the very author of the article:
“One of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that IT FULLY SATISFIED MY DESIRE for historical rootedness.”
You can talk about “anecdotes” all day long, I will stick to the article itself, and what the author reveals about himself in his own words.
I can also use David Pell’s words, while he is using anecdotes:
“Rather than being moved by “emotion” (whatever Bojidar means by that), they saw the futility of a world in which THEY BORE THE WEIGHT of wading through thousands of competing voices demanding allegiance to their personal opinions about the meaning of scripture.”
Another proof of emotionalism as a factor of converting to Romanism. These people just got tired of doing what they were supposed to do: Study the Scriptures.
I also like the fact that from the words of both Devin and David – no anecdotal evidence, their own words, please note – those that come from Romanism to Protestantism are poorly catechized, have no knowledge, and are in need of better instruction in the faith. To the contrary, those that come from Protestantism, are well-educated, catechized, have strong faith, and are real Christians.
I think that shows very well the fruit of the two faiths: Even the worst level of faith in the Protestantism is much better educated in the faith than most Romanists. And I must admit: I have very seldom seen any faith or understanding in those that come from Romanism. We need to educate them and catechize them. Whereas there is not much need to educate and catechize those that convert from Protestantism to Romanism – they come educated and understanding.
Ron – That sounds fair. Dunno my history there so I’ll take your word until I know better but it sure sounds like the sort of thing that could get misrepresented.
Ron – let me clarify – I meant that it [the Bolsec scenario] could easily get misrepresented. I’m not claiming that you are likely misrepresenting it.
Bojidar,
Let’s leave to the side your concerns about one making a decision based off what you claim was emotional. To be fair, as St. Augustine said long ago, we have made for God and our hearts our restless until they find Him. Thus, if one finds the truth about God and His Church then it should not be surprising that our desires are met. I do not concede that Dr. Anders left the Reformed faith for such reasons as you claim but I think it best to address his topic: How John Calvin Made Me a Catholic.
When Calvin writes, in reference to the Church, that leaving her is always fatal, as the following quote makes clear, on what basis did he (Calvin) leave the Church? That is a fair question and not based off emotionalism. I would be happy to get your thoughts about that, if you don’t mind.
“But as it is now our purpose to discourse of the visible Church, let us learn, from her single title of Mother, how useful, nay, how necessary the knowledge of her is, since there is no other means of entering into life unless she conceive us in the womb and give us birth, unless she nourish us at her breasts, and, in short, keep us under her charge and government, until, divested of mortal flesh, we become like the angels, (Matth. 22: 30.) For our weakness does not permit us to leave the school until we have spent our whole lives as scholars. Moreover, beyond the pale of the Church no forgiveness of sins, no salvation, can be hoped for, as Isaiah and Joel testify, (Isa. 37: 32; Joel 2: 32.) To their testimony Ezekiel subscribes, when he declares, “They shall not be in the assembly of my people, neither shall they be written in the writing of the house of Israel,” (Ezek. 13: 9;) as, on the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true piety are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem. For which reason it is said in the psalm, “Remember me, O Lord, with the favour that thou bearest unto thy people: O visit me with thy salvation; that I may see the good of thy chosen, that I may rejoice in the gladness of thy nation, that I may glory with thine inheritance,” (Ps. 106: 4, 6.) By these words the paternal favour of God and the special evidence of spiritual life are confined to his peculiar people, and hence the abandonment of the Church is always fatal.” (IV:4).
Tim, it is easy. Calvin never left the Church. It may be your personal opinion that he left the Church, or it may satisfy some personal desire for you to say that he left the Church, but the reality is that Calvin never left the Church.
Bojidar — The fact that Dr. Anders’ desire for historical rootedness was fulfilled in his reception into the Church neither condemns conversion to Catholicism nor impugns Dr. Anders’ reasons for doing so.
If an atheist joined your reformed congregation and expressed how relieved he was to finally have his desire for communion with the transcendent fulfilled would you chastise him for not talking about objective truth enough? Or would you be happy that his conversion to the objective truth of the death and resurrection of Christ for that man came along with spiritual, psychological and epistemological consolation?
Dr. Anders’ didn’t say that consolation of historical rootedness (which one ought to expect when coming to the knowledge of the God of history) was his only reason for converting. I might be better to say it was a delightful side-benefit of discovering the objective truth that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded.
At any rate it’s clear that Dr. Anders did a great deal of historical and theological study on his way to Catholicism. He’s at least got one more doctorate than you or I do in studying Calvin. You’re really making a mountain out of a molehill of a passing remark.
Bojidar said: “Those that value the truth of the Bible over any personal preferences have only choice: Reformed Christianity.”
Of course no personal preferences, just the clear truth of the bible leads to (as you said it) the only choice………
Canadian and American Reformed Churches
Christian Reformed Church in North America
Christian Reformed Churches of Australia
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Congregational Federation of Australia
Dutch Reformed Church
Federation of Swiss Protestant Churches
Free Reformed Churches of North America
Heritage Reformed Congregations
Netherlands Reformed Congregations
Orthodox Christian Reformed Church
Protestant Reformed Churches in America
Reformed Church in America
Reformed Church in Hungary
Reformed Church in the United States
Remonstrant Brotherhood
United Reformed Church
United Reformed Churches in North America
Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church
Christ Community Church
Church of Scotland
Confederation of Reformed Evangelical Churches
Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church
Evangelical Presbyterian Church in England and Wales
Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Ukraine
Evangelical Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Church of Scotland
Free Church of Scotland (Continuing)
Free Presbyterian Church (Australia)
Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland
Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster
Greek Evangelical Church
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Presbyterian Church in America
Presbyterian Church in Canada
Presbyterian Church of India
Presbyterian Church in Ireland
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan
Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand
Presbyterian Church of Australia
Presbyterian Church of Brazil
Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia
Presbyterian Church of Korea
Presbyterian Church of Pakistan
Presbyterian Church of Wales (also a Methodist church)
Presbyterian Church (USA)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Australia)
Presbyterian Reformed Church (Canada)
Reformed Church of France
Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly
Reformed Presbyterian Church of Australia
Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America
Southern Presbyterian Church (Australia)
United Free Church of Scotland
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa
United Presbyterian Church of Pakistan
Upper Cumberland Presbyterian Church
Westminster Presbyterian Church of Australia
There’s many more, but you get the idea.
Canadian, of your post I conclude that the biggest “choice” for you that comes from your faith is what organization you need to join. Your earthly membership in an organization seems to be of much importance to you. May be it satisfies some personal desire to be under a bureaucratic umbrella, I suppose. It seems to be much more important than your faith in Jesus Christ as your only Lord and Savior, irrespective of earthly bureaucratic organizations. That must be why Jesus died: To make you a member of a religious club.
By the way, all the above are part of the community of faith. The existence of these separate bodies is not a choice you make from your faith, it is a choice you make from your understanding of your faith, or to put it in different words, it is your confession of faith. Let me remind you that the Roman church today is much different from what it was 10 centuries ago. Just look at your last catechism – 800 pages, isn’t it? Do you know it all? I doubt it. So you have accepted the “choice” of one organization that you don’t even know what it believes.
Greetings, C2C.
I wish to thank all of you for your feedback, and for the opportunity to share my thoughts and experiences.
At this point, I would like to respond to a few of the initial comments on my article.
To begin with, let me say that I wrote this article to point out some very specific nuances in the history of Calvinism and Evangelicalism, and to explain how this helped me on my path to Rome. The title “How John Calvin Made me a Catholic” is obviously a bit of hyperbole, and does not begin to explain all the reasons I became Catholic.
My “desire for historical rootedness” and my frustrations with the”confusion and inconsistency” of Protestantism were very real, but hardly sufficient reasons to join the Catholic Church. To Bojidar, Kevin, and Spencer, I say that my conversion to Catholicism was the fruit of ten years of theological study, and the honest conclusions arrived at in the pursuit of truth. Becoming Catholic was literally the last thing I ever wanted or expected, but I joined the Church fully convinced of its truth. My conversion was not simply an emotional response to Protestant anarchy.
Many Evangelicals come to Rome in search of an interpretive authority. While this is the logical thing to do – answering the epistemological question first – accepting the Church’s magisterium was actually the last step in my conversion. My journey began with soteriology – comparing biblical and patristic doctrines to the Reformers. I concluded – on the basis of hard, cold, unemotional exegesis – that Luther profoundly misread Paul. From this, I reexamined ecclesiology, and ultimately authority, and concluded that the Catholics had the better arguments.
I have given a broader account of my conversion here:
https://www.chnetwork.org/newsletters/may10.pdf
I have also given an interview that goes into more of the doctrinal basis for my conversion.
It is available online :
https://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/seriessearchprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289
Also, in response to my historical claims about Calvin and Bolsec.
I deliberately left out most of the footnoting I would have included in an academic article.
If you would like more documentation, please examine my dissertation.
It is avaible at:https://disexpress.umi.com/dxweb#search
Prophets from the ranks of shepherds: John Calvin and the challenge of popular religion (1532–1555)
by Anders, Albert David Ph.D., The University of Iowa, 2002, 712 pages.
For those who are interested, I also recommend Philip Holtrop’s 2-volume study on the Bolsec controversy.
Michael Liccione,
No, I am not willing to defend Calvin’s handling of Geneva at all points, and I’m certainly not going to defend his role in Servetus’ execution. However, a contextual reading certainly relativizes the actions and perhaps lessening the culpability — I don’t know, I’m not Calvin’s judge…God is.
Dr. Anders,
Thank you for your contribution to CtC.
Bojidar,
If Calvin did not leave the Church, then what is it that he did?
“Your earthly membership in an organization seems to be of much importance to you. May be it satisfies some personal desire to be under a bureaucratic umbrella, I suppose. It seems to be much more important than your faith in Jesus Christ as your only Lord and Savior, irrespective of earthly bureaucratic organizations. That must be why Jesus died: To make you a member of a religious club.”
Your comments about a Church would be correct if the Church were a man-made institution. To require membership in a man-made institution for salvation would be the height of arrogance and is not credible. However, the Church is not of man’s authority or creation but of God and has Christ for Her Founder and as such she is His Bride endowed with His authority, which can be traced back to the Apostles, empowered by the Holy Spirit working through history in this one Body of Christ.
Tom, it is simple: Calvin stayed in the Church and helped reform the Church.
“Your comments about a Church would be correct if the Church were a man-made institution.”
Tom, notice: my comments were not about “a Church.” They were about a bureaucratic organization. The Roman church is not a “church” in the Scriptural sense, therefore it is a man-made organization. Therefore my comments are correct.
BM (#44):
Since Dr Anders has clearly reached the opposite conclusion after a long study of the issues, I wonder what authority you’re willing to acknowledge for adjudicating between his interpretation of Scripture and yours on the question what counts as ‘church’. Is it scholarship? Is it what you take to be the inner testimony of the Spirit? Or some combination of the two? And whatever your answer, how would we know it’s anything more than one opinion among many, i.e. a doctrine propounded with divine authority?
Bojidar,
Though this thread was supposed to be about the Dr.’s conversion and what he discovered about Calvin, you have made it about the foundational difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.
I have to ask you: how do you know the Bible is the inspired word of God? After all, there were more than 150 manuscripts floating around for the first few centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided upon. Martin Luther went through the Scriptures and decided which ones he believed were inspired, and chucked several books that had been accepted as inspired by all of Christianity up until that point. I have to wonder why every person with a personal relationship with Christ does not have the right to read over the 150+ manuscripts himself, and decide for himself which ones are inspired by the Holy Spirit and which ones are not. Why does Martin Luther get to decide, but I don’t? This is why Protestantism is founded on a house of sand, because the only way you can know the Scriptures are inspired is by submitting to the Catholic Church’s authority. There is no other way to know that a specific writing is inspired except through authoritative revelation and that revelation came through the Catholic Church more than a thousand years before Protestantism cropped up. The very Bible you use to bash the Catholic Church was given to you by the Catholic Church. As Scott Hahn so aptly put it, you must sit in Rome’s lap to slap her in the face.
I believe Dr. Ander’s point is that the foundational principle of modern Protestantism–the absolute right to privately interpret Scripture–was not, in fact, a principle of the Reformation. The leaders of the Reformation were absolutely ruthless in their quests to serve as the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and doctrinal gatekeepers. What he and others have touched on here are the real, practical problems with sola scriptura, and why it can never be the foundation for Christianity that Jesus intended. In reality, the only person who is allowed to practice sola scriptura is the pastor of the Protestant church. Anyone who disagrees with him will be asked to leave. I simply cannot believe Our Lord would have prayed for a unity that he did not believe was possible. And unity IS impossible in Protestantism, with “every man his own Pope,” to quote Mr. Luther.
Michael, I already wrote a post about it but the admins decided to not publish it.
David Anders self-proclaimed authority is his “ten years of theological studies” and “honest conclusions.” It is all his, I concede that, and his it must remain. I will say that I have TWENTY years of theological studies, with ten years of non-Christian philosophical studies before that, before I became a Christian. And my conclusions are every bit as “honest” as his.
Bojidar,
You said,
You have yet to show this in your comments. Therefore, your comments are “correct” as far as they only line-up with your own personal judgment and reaffirm it – which you have yet to prove both in the “Scriptural sense” and the historical sense to Tom or any of us. You should try to avoid statements like these unless you can include some support for them.
In the peace of Christ,
Sh’muel
My apologies for comment stacking, Dr. Liccione got to ya first :)
Herein lies the beauty of the Catholic Church. I don’t have to wrestle with the claims of competing scholars or have 30 years of theological study to worship God in good conscience. “Professional theologian” is not my vocation. God’s wisdom is not man’s wisdom, which is why the principle of unity in the Church was always apostolic succession, not years of theological study. Thank God that we have a principle that can be understood and followed by those without even a year of formal theological study, or those who lived before the canonization of the bible or the invention of the printing press. It’s not a “desire for ease,” as our interlocutor here would insult us. It’s “they listened to the teaching of the apostles, broke the bread and prayed.” It’s “obey your elders, for they have been put over you by God as stewards of your souls.” It’s “not all of you should desire to be teachers.” It’s a recognition with the Ethiopian eunuch that I need someone to explain the faith to me. The big-C Catholic principle is truly a little-c catholic principle. This Church is for everyone.
Bojidar (#47):
I very much doubt that Dr Anders believes his scholarly credentials prove Catholicism to be true, or that he is more “honest” than you. He has written what is largely a brief intellectual autobiography, and that’s why I understand why the “admins” wouldn’t let you publish your arguments, if that’s the choice they made. In that case, my request that you produce such arguments was probably inappropriate. Sorry.
Best,
Mike
Kevin D (#41):
I’m glad to hear that. I’m sure you’ll be equally glad to hear that I see the Catholic persecutors in the same way.
Best,
Mike
The “admins” for this thread are not allowing comments that contain personal attacks or insults directed at other participants in the conversation. Discuss the evidence, arguments, history, all you want. But comments containing personal attacks will not be approved.
“Let your speech always be with grace” (Col 4:6)
Dawn, every single one of the questions you are asking are answered by Protestant theologians in the last 400 years. As are all the arguments that Anders mentions in his article. Which brings me to the question how much of “serious studies” he has really done if he repeats arguments that have been answered, without providing explanation for his personal choice to ignore the answers. My bet is he hasn’t done much of a study if he doesn’t know that those arguments are proven false by the opponents.
Again, my argument stands, that Anders’ conversion to Romanism is entirely based on his personal emotional preferences. “Ten years of study” and “honest conclusions” are not very convincing claims if all he does is repeat warmed over arguments that have been answered. Anders lacks any convincing claim to objective reasons for his conversion. It is entirely personal, and while it is interesting to read, it can’t be taken for authoritative – unless, of course, we want make the Roman church be as subjectivist in its apologetics as are the Charismatics.
David Pell, you “beauty of the catholic church” proves exactly what I set out to prove: namely, that those who choose the Roman church do it for one main reason: personal preference to not study the Scriptures themselves. This is no objective argument, this is a subjective argument. It is your own, and your won it will remain. There is no excuse for not studying the Scripture.
Michael:
“I very much doubt that Dr Anders believes his scholarly credentials prove Catholicism to be true, or that he is more “honest” than you. He has written what is largely a brief intellectual autobiography…”
Well, then my case is closed. Your words, if taken face value, proved what I set out to prove: Anders’ conversion is based on personal emotional preferences – no matter what he claims. He has no objective grounds for his conversion, only the satisfaction of some personal needs and desires.
Hey, @Canadian #38, you left out the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, which is the one that led me (through teaching me the principles of religious authority and love for truth) to the Catholic Church in 1995 – thanks be to God!
Wonderful news, Dr Anders.
jj
Bojidar,
As a once firmly convinced Reformed Baptist who (wrongly) considered Catholics to have embraced a “false gospel of works” and who genuinely longed to persuade them of their “errors,” I can assure you that emotion does not win the day for me here. I am concerned about truth– what the Bible actually teaches.
If I still believed that the Biblical Gospel consisted of justification (a legal declaration of the sinner’s imputed righteousness before God) by grace through faith *alone*, I would still be a Protestant. If one really wishes to look at the clear teaching of the Bible on this issue, the second chapter of James states explicitly that man is *not* justified by faith alone. I know that Protestants will say that this verse must be interpreted in light of the other, “clear” verses on justification in the Bible which supposedly “prove” that justification actually *is* by faith alone. (Of course, I know that Protestants will say this– it is what I said as a Protestant myself!) However, what could be more clear than James’ own statement? Why are the other verses on justification somehow more “clear” than this absolutely unequivocal one?
A large part of the reason that I am leaving Protestantism is that, in light of all of the Protestant exegetical (or *eisegetical*) gymnastics to support their various positions, the Catholic Church’s teaching simply makes much more obvious *sense* of the *Bible’s* teachings. Again, truth, not emotion.
Bojidar,
In the past I’ve seen accounts given of those who came into the Catholic Church that were much more ‘objectively’ styled and left out the ’emotional.’ I’ve seen those authors get criticized from Protestants for not being emotional enough.
Bojidar,
In response to David’s statement in the article that “One of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that it fully satisfied my desire for historical rootedness,” in #18 you wrote:
What you offer is a false dilemma, one that is not charitable. Your dilemma ignores the possibility that historical rootedness is desirable presicisely insofar as it is truth-confirming. The truth of a system of theology that showed up yesterday, and claimed to be that taught by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, would be highly dubious, precisely because it lacks historical rootedness. Hence desiring historical rootedness can be an expression of our desire for objective truth. And because of that, and because charity requires that we assume the best of a person, until shown otherwise, we should assume that David desired historical rootedness precisely for this reason, i.e. in virtue of his desire for objective truth.
Then in #54 you wrote:
Your ‘argument’ is based on a false dilemma, as I showed above. And therefore, your conclusion does not follow that David’s conversion is “entirely based on his personal emotional preferences” or that “he has no objective grounds for his conversion.” Those are mere assumptions on your part (uncharitable as well), which do not follow from the false dilemma you offered in #18.
Lastly, in #54, you wrote:
If you think one (or more) of the statements David has made in his article is false, then instead of attacking David himself (i.e. by claiming that he hasn’t done serious study), the more charitable and appropriate response is to show which of his claims is false, and why it is false. So far, you have not done that. You have not shown that any of David’s statements are false. So at this point, David’s article stands entirely unrefuted.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Christopher and Sean, I am sure you have more anecdotal evidence, and I am sure it is your choice to interpret it as a “quest for truth” rather than emotional decision. Your personal interpretation of that anecdotal evidence is not an argument. What is an argument in this case, are the words of the author of the article, where he says that “one of the most satisfying things” is the fact that the Roman church satisfied a desire of his. I am sure that if you two needed to write an honest account of your conversion to Romanism, you’d have to make the same confession as the author does.
And Christopher, you have to make a gigantic logical leap from the statement “we are not justified by faith alone” to the statement “the Roman church has the authoritative interpretation of the Scripture.” While the former is a Biblical truth that requires interpretation in the light of the whole Scripture, the latter is a subjective statement of choice, and it has no direct grounds in the Scripture. There is no necessary logical connection between the two.
Bryan, my dilemma doesn’t ignore the possibility for the validity of historical rootedness as truth-confirming. In fact, if you knew anything about the arguments of the Reformers, you would know that their criticism against the Papacy are exactly that it has abandoned the historical rootedness and has created a new religion based on a bureaucratic organization, not on the truth of the Scripture and handed down by the Church Fathers. My dilemma only questions the motives of the author himself – as evidenced by his own honest statement of what is “most satisfying.”
In previous post – not published by the admins – I pointed to some false historical interpretations made by the author, and how they flow from his personal bias, not from any objective facts. I pointed to the following passage in the article:
“Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory – a sort of ecclesiastical court- to judge the moral and theological purity of his parishioners.”
“Most important contribution”??? Says who? Anders? Has Calvin ever declared this to be his “most important contribution”? I don’t recall so.
Calvin’s most important contribution is his Institutes of the Christian Religion. This is what he spent the bulk of his life on, and this is what we the Calvinists consider his REALLY most important contribution, to Geneva and to the rest of the world. If Anders has done any deep historical studies, he would have known that. But he chose to arbitrarily declare one little thing “the most important contribution” of Calvin because he has personal preferences.
An example of a historical event in the article presented falsely and interpreted subjectively by the author is this:
“One image in particular sticks in my mind. April, 1546. Pierre Ameaux, a citizen of Geneva, was forced to crawl to the door of the Bishop’s residence, with his head uncovered and a torch in his hand. He begged the forgiveness of God, of the ministers and of the city council. His crime? He contradicted the preaching of Calvin. The council, at Calvin’s urging, had decreed Ameaux’s public humiliation as punishment.”
And now the historical truth from someone who had TWENTY years of study:
Two and a half years earlier, Pierre Ameaux and his wife Benoite wanted a divorce with a permission to remarry to different partners in the future – a completely unbiblical divorce, you would admit. Pierre Ameaux was probably a libertine. To get a legal divorce, he had to appear before the Consistory and ask for permission to divorce his wife. He falsely accused his wife first of blasphemy, and then, at the second trial before the consistory, of adultery. The decisions of the Consistory did not please him, so he went around calling Calvin a “Picard” and that his teachings were false. (“Picard” is the Swiss derogatory word for the French, comparable to the N-word or to “gook” in America today.) For this he was sentenced – not by Calvin or the Consistory, note that – by the City Council to ask God for forgiveness. God, not Calvin.
The rest of the article is full with similar incorrect interpretations of history, Calvin, and Evangelical theology like that.
Bojidar (re: #59)
You wrote:
Your dilemma only “questions the motives of the author” if it is a true dilemma. But if you acknowledge the possibility that the desire for historical rootedness can be on account of it being truth-confirming, then your dilemma is a false dilemma, in which case you have not shown that the motives of the author are anything less than truth-loving.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
It is a bit too late for this, Bryan. I already showed that the author gives false account and interpretations of historical events. Even if by a logical twist you can show the probability that he is truth-loving – only a probability, mind you – his incorrect presentation of history speaks mightily against it.
Bojidar,
You say Dr. Anders is biased. Are you unbiased? I would say everyone who studies one historical fgiure as much as Dr. Anders has studied Calvin will have some emotion attached to his view of that person. He is not writing a scholarly piece. Emotions are allowed in this forum.
I do think you seem to view the choosing of Calvinism or Catholicism as merely a scholarly exercise. Who is right on the bible and on the history. It is more than that. Catholicism demands you ascent to the church as the body of Christ. Just like the incarnation of Jesus demanded more than a scholarly investigation of the truth of His claims. It demanded a response of faith. The church’s claim is similar. It claims to extends the incarnation into our present day. If Dr. Anders response was unemotional scholarship I would wonder if he got it.
Bojidar (re: #61)
At least we have established that all those things you claimed earlier (with such confidence and certainty) that supposedly followed from David’s statement about satisfying his “desire for historical rootedness” do not actually follow from that statement. Do you therefore wish (out of courtesy) to retract them, and build your case against David’s article entirely on the two items you describe in #59 (i.e. Calvin’s “most important contribution” and what David says about the case of Pierre Ameaux)?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
This is an interesting post and discussion thread. I am an Anglican currently reading through the Catechism Of The Catholic Church. In the interest of ecumenism, is there anything Luther or Calvin did or wrote that Catholics find beneficial to the life of the Church? What are your thoughts on Luther’s attack on indulgences and a desire to return to the teachings of the early church fathers?
I am not a Calvinist. I think righteousness is infused. I reject Sola Scriptura. I have a mixed view of the Atonement (Christus Victor & Substitutionary)
Also, in light of Lumen Gentium #15, what incentive is there to abandon Anglicanism and enter the Roman Catholic communion? The spirit of the following statement seems to affirm ecumenical ties with us:
15. The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who, being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of communion with the successor of Peter. (14*) For there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (15*) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ. They also recognize and accept other sacraments within their own Churches or ecclesiastical communities. Many of them rejoice in the episcopate, celebrate the Holy Eucharist and cultivate devotion toward the Virgin Mother of God.(16*) They also share with us in prayer and other spiritual benefits. Likewise we can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy Spirit, for to them too He gives His gifts and graces whereby He is operative among them with His sanctifying power. Some indeed He has strengthened to the extent of the shedding of their blood. In all of Christ’s disciples the Spirit arouses the desire to be peacefully united, in the manner determined by Christ, as one flock under one shepherd, and He prompts them to pursue this end. (17*) Mother Church never ceases to pray, hope and work that this may come about. She exhorts her children to purification and renewal so that the sign of Christ may shine more brightly over the face of the earth.
“What is an argument in this case, are the words of the author of the article, where he says that one of the most satisfying things’ is the fact that the Roman church satisfied a desire of his.”
Bojidar,
Your entire argument seems to hinge off of this one sentence in the article. Dr. Anders stated that the satisfaction of his desire… was ONE of the most satisfying things. One of MANY, not the ONLY one. Your assertion depends on his “desire for historical rootedness” being the ONLY satisfying thing about his conversion, which isn’t what he said at all. And to criticize the use of the the word “satisfy” in his article is plain silly. For example, one can receive satisfaction from intellectual endeavors just as much as they can sensually. Are you satisfied when you read the Scriptures? So, why can’t one be satisified with coming to realize Truth exists in its fullness within the fold of the Catholic Church? “Satisfaction” doesn’t necessarily imply thoughtless emotion. “Desire” is a synonym for “wish” or “request”. It doesn’t have to imply thoughtless emotion either. Basically, your argumentation is wrong on several fronts, even down to basic English. Nor have you proved any of your assertions to be accurate.
Randy, thank you for your admission. Yes, I say Anders is biased and this article must be taken for what it is: A purely subjective personal account. It is his, and his it shall remain. One only wonders why would Roman Catholicism rely on subjective accounts and bias, if the very Roman religion claims objectivity. I see contradiction here. Don’t you?
And no, Catholicism doesn’t demand the ascent to the Church as the body of Christ. Catholicism demands the subjection under a bureaucratic organization centered in Rome that claims to be the Church. There is nothing in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ that points to such subjection to a bureaucratic organization as a supposed “ascent to the church.” It is a later interpretation by Roman theologians who had vested interests in the bureaucratic organization of Rome – and just like Bryan said earlier, “The truth of a system of theology that showed up yesterday, and claimed to be that taught by Jesus Christ of Nazareth, would be highly dubious, precisely because it lacks historical rootedness.”
Therefore Romanism is every bit as historically unrooted as Anders accuses Protestantism to be.
Bryan, I don’t know how you have “established” such a thing. How did you establish something contrary to what the author said in the article, namely, that “one of the most satisfactory things” is that his desire was satisfied? By a logical twist? If we were talking abstract logic here, with no context, in a purely formal Aristotelian fashion, I would have said you have established that it is possible. But we have a specific case of an article and an author, who is proved to be less than objective or honest in his presentation of history, and we have his own admission that he is after his desires being satisfied. So even if I admit that in the abstract sense there is a probability that such a statement still allows for some slight probability for honest truth-seeking, how is this admission going to solve your problem in this specific case, where there are more factors involved?
The following statement is offensive and uncharitable:
“…and build your case against David’s article ENTIRELY ON THE TWO ITEMS you describe in #59 (i.e. Calvin’s “most important contribution” and what David says about the case of Pierre Ameaux)?”
It deliberately misses the very point of my post, that the whole article is written in the same spirit. I specifically mention that these are only examples of the authors incorrect and subjective interpretations. You can notice the last statement I made in that post, and you could have figured out I didn’t give more examples only because I didn’t want to make a longer post. If you want me to write a whole article debunking what Anders has said point by point, would you publish it on your site? I doubt so. Therefore I found it sufficient to only give two examples. They are enough to cast doubt on the honesty of something that is supposed to be a personal testimony.
Joe, your assessment of my argument is incorrect. If you want me to point to other places in the article where the subjectivism of the author is apparent, I will do it.
To start with:
“Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected. To begin with, I DECIDED THAT I REALLY DIDN’T LIKE Calvin. I FOUND him proud, judgmental and unyielding.”
Strangely, if I wrote the same thing about the author of the article in this discussion, the admins won’t publish it. But notice the words: TO BEGIN WITH.
“Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory…”
Again, personal preference in deciding what is “Calvin’s most important contribution.”
“But I FINALLY REALIZED that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition.”
Again, a subjective realization. Amazingly, the most individualistic of all nations on this planet are the USA and Switzerland, both established by Calvinist populations in history. Obviously the author has his own subjective ways of interpreting Calvin and the Evangelical tradition.
There is more. In fact, the whole article is like that, based on subjective bias, not objective scholarship.
If I understand the idea of becoming a Catholic involved an emotional response, I’d have to say yes to that. My emotions weighed against becoming Catholic. Everyone and everything that was familiar, comfortable, and rote in my existence and practice was being shuttled out the door, so to speak. I had to justify what I was seeing with others who could or would not see the same things I was seeing, or were incapable of putting the same weight on them that I was being required to use. (Perhaps the cost to those individuals was even greater than mine. I do not know.)
Work out your salvation in fear and trembling were Paul’s words and look what he gave up to become a servant of Jesus. I cannot work my way to heaven, but I can merit the grace I am given by responding to it correctly to the best of my ability given my station in life. So I imitated Peter without the depth and breadth of his call when Jesus told him: “You follow Me.” I could have stayed where I was but I am convinced that had I done that, I would be damned in the real sense of that word, as in only fit for Hell. I would have denied the Truth and one cannot deny the Truth without peril to one’s own soul.
I found much more than I left behind. God is true and has been true to me. The item about a hundred fold for those who leave behind everything has been met in my experience. I was given a wife whose Presbyterian lay missionary parents generally loathed me for being Catholic and barely tolerated me for being married to their daughter. (They actually thought I was ripe for conversion. Weren’t they surprised!)
My wife found out what Catholicity really is and poped, and I became even less popular with my in-laws. The other side of that coin would note that I was able to share something in common with our Lord, and it was not the glad hand of welcome.
Later, my in-laws were in grave trouble. He had early dementia and she had alzheimers. We opened our home to them, setting up an in-law apartment for their privacy and otherwise ensuring that they were fed, bathed, provided with clean clothing and sheets, rides to the doctor, and regular doses of attention. It permitted my wife to honor her parents (and surprisingly reconnect with her siblings) and I was permitted to display that “turn the other cheek” response that Jesus commanded.
I definitely did not pope in the fit of an emotional ephiphany. It involved none of the high drama of my original conversion, nor did it resemble the emotional acme of a real pentecostal revival. I poped because the Church, the Body of which Christ is the Head, was right where I was right, and it was right where I was wrong – which I deemed at least as important as the right/right stuff.
When Newman arrived at the Catholic Church, he noted that Jesus had equipped It to do what must be done in the face of His enemy. The first thing I did, having already been validly baptised, was to make a good confession. What a relief! What a lifter of burdens! I also managed to find a rosary and learn to use that wonderful sacramental.
Surprisingly my wife, when she was received into the Church, started with a good confession and wept for joy coming out of the confessional. She had not been scolded by the confessor, she had been relieved of the burdens she carried and she recognized it as exactly that. God had forgiven her, and don’t we all need that.
Up above, Canadian does us the favor of listing the various Reformed communions and churches. When I first scanned it, it looked like the Yellow Pages under Church, and the Yellow Pages list the conflicts involved without providing the histories of those conflicts.
I have a good Catholic bible, a copy of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, more good literature than I could ever have hoped for, the opportunity to serve, as in CCD, and a host of people who have my back, as with the mainstays of this website. Jesus noting a “hundred fold” might be a bit short in my case. I seem to have been favored more greatly than that and I am most appreciative.
Bojidar,
So, you are willing to abandon your argument over Dr. Ander’s supposedly purely emotional decision to become Catholic based on my solid refutation of that particular argument? Good. So, let’s move on to the other “new” elements you’ve discovered.
“Strangely, mastering Calvin didn’t lead me anywhere I expected. To begin with, I DECIDED THAT I REALLY DIDN’T LIKE Calvin. I FOUND him proud, judgmental and unyielding.”
Yes. That is his personal observation. But that observation, as I’m sure the Dr. would agree, is not the reason he became Catholic. There have been quite a number of “proud, judgmental, and unyielding” Catholics throughout the Church’s 2000 year old history as well. It doesn’t mean that the Church’s teachings are wrong. Nor does Calvin’s personality flaws, real or perceived, prove that he’s wrong. So it’s highly doubtful that this was the main criteria for Dr. Ander’s decision to become Catholic… which neuters your argument.
“Calvin’s most important contribution to Geneva was the establishment of the Consistory…”
Again, personal preference in deciding what is “Calvin’s most important contribution.”
I’m not sure what his most important contribution to Geneva was. If it wasn’t the establishment of the Consistory, please let me know what it was.
“But I FINALLY REALIZED that Calvin, with his passion for order and authority, was fundamentally at odds with the individualist spirit of my Evangelical tradition.”
First, you’d have to disprove that Calvin had a passion for order and authority to show that this is subjective reasoning. Second, the Doctor concludes that this passion for order and authority conflicted with the individualist spirit of his particular Evangelical tradition (and there are many). This is not a contradiction. This makes complete sense and can be proven objectively. His attraction was the individualist spirit of Evangelicalism and it conflicted with the authoritarian view. I see nothing wrong with this statement.
Ok, what else?
Donald, thank you for your honest post. You did prove my point: That conversion to Romanism is mainly a result of seeking satisfaction for emotional issues. I agree.
I only disagree with your justification of it. I find such an attitude self-centered. I don’t think a person can be proud of such an attitude. It also contradicts the Roman claims for “objectivity.” Apparently, a person becomes a Romanist just the way they become a Charismatic – based on emotions.
You still don’t seem to get it. Every conversion story is subjective and personal. But most involve a good bit of reason as well. It can impact us on many levels. You seem to put emotion against reason. That any emotion means you can ignore all the logic given.
You don’t seem to understand Catholicism very well. You seem to focus on a “bureaucratic organization”. I have not found Catholicism to be more or less bureaucratic than my protestant church was. It is entirely beside the point. Bringing it up means you are miles from asking the right question.
Are you claiming Jesus never talked about a church? Mt 18:17 says, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.” Are you claiming Jesus never said that? If not, then why do you say, “There is nothing in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ that points to such subjection to a bureaucratic organization as a supposed “ascent to the church.”?
You do a lot to question the motives of those who disagree with you. First Dr Anders and then “Roman theologians who had vested interests.” Questioning motives is easy. Interacting with arguments is harder.
Joe,
“So, you are willing to abandon your argument over Dr. Ander’s supposedly purely emotional decision to become Catholic based on my solid refutation of that particular argument? Good.”
Well, since you didn’t have any “solid refutation” of that argument in this particular context, logically I am forced to keep the argument. When you show a “solid refutation,” I will abandon it, I promise. I find you very far from the mark, yet.
“Yes. That is his personal observation. But that observation, as I’m sure the Dr. would agree, is not the reason he became Catholic.”
That’s your interpretation. Anders’ words are: TO BEGIN WITH. A different, way more logical interpretation, based on Anders’ own STARTING POINT, is that his conversion flowed from his initial “dislike” of Calvin. He didn’t know much about Calvin, then he found out he disliked Calvin. And then he makes a judgment of Calvin’s character – a judgment, I’d say, that is entirely inappropriate for a discussion like ours. If I said that I found Anders proud, judgmental and unyielding, that would mean my banishment from this discussion. But for some reason the admins won’t use the same standards fro Anders, would they?
“I’m not sure what his most important contribution to Geneva was. If it wasn’t the establishment of the Consistory, please let me know what it was.:
You could be sure if you just read what I wrote above: “Calvin’s most important contribution is his Institutes of the Christian Religion. This is what he spent the bulk of his life on, and this is what we the Calvinists consider his REALLY most important contribution, to Geneva and to the rest of the world.” Did you read it?
“First, you’d have to disprove that Calvin had a passion for order and authority to show that this is subjective reasoning. Second, the Doctor concludes that this passion for order and authority conflicted with the individualist spirit of his particular Evangelical tradition (and there are many). This is not a contradiction. This makes complete sense and can be proven objectively. His attraction was the individualist spirit of Evangelicalism and it conflicted with the authoritarian view. I see nothing wrong with this statement.”
Anders claims that he “realized” something that others reject. His realization is in conflict with the “realization” of so many others. There is no conflict between Calvin’s passion for order and authority and the individualist spirit of the Evangelical tradition. To say that, you must have made a priori assumption that “individualist spirit” necessarily contradicts “order and authority.” And then another assumption that “collectivism” necessarily means “order and authority.” Such assumptions are yet to be proven valid. Anders made a personal subjective decision to accept them for valid but he doesn’t show how he proved their validity. He must have accepted it for granted – hardly an objective, scholarly thing to do.
Randy, I have never read where Jesus equated the Church with a bureaucratic organization based in Rome. Please direct me to the specific words of Jesus Christ where He says so.
In response to the claim that I got my facts wrong in the Ameaux case:
From the Registres de la compagnie des Pasteurs II: 155-156:
Calvin’s complaint to the company of pastors (not the council):
“A proposer Monsieur Calvin touchant Pierre Ameaux, que la fame est commune par la ville que led. Ameaux a heu ditz que led. Sr. Calvin a prescher fause doctrine par si devant, comme la chose est notoire que led. Ameaux a ditz telles choses, se playgnant fort, et qu’il demande l’advis et vouldroyt estre à cent lieux d’ici, se offrant s’il neamoing [sic] à la ville. Que Messieurs l’ont ouy et que le nom de Dieu en est blasmé.”
The Council’s Decision:
Having seen the content of the trial and P. Ameaux’s responses in which he admitted to speaking against the Christian Reformation and having greatly insulted J. Calvin, minister, saying that he was a seducer and had preached a false doctrine for seven years, which is amply contained in his confessions, it is ordered, seeing that he asked for forgiveness, that forgiveness be offered when he comes to beg mercy from God and the justice of the Large Council, confessing to have spoken badly and paying 60 escus soleil for the fortification of the city. And if one [Calvin] does not wish to forgive him, that he come before the bishop’s residence bareheaded with a lit torch in his hand and his case be read between the two doors and he must beg mercy on his knees of God and the authorities and confess that he spoke badly in the presence of Seigneur Calvin. (Roget, Amédée. Histoire du Peuple de Genève depuis la réforme jusqu’à l’escalade. 5 vols. Geneva: Librairie Alexandre Jullien, 1870-1883. Reprint; Nieuwkoop: B. de Graf, 1976. (cited in Roget 2:212-213)
To retort that Ameaux was a libertine, and that this somehow justifies Calvin’s charge of blasphemy, and the council’s punishment is to engage in an anachronistic and polemical reading of the facts. Ameaux was not punished for his divorce or his wife’s immorality. He was punished for speaking against Calvin and his theology.
I also recommend reading the treatment given to Ameaux by William Naphy. Calvin and the Consolidation of the Genevan Reformation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1994.
Bojidar,
Your view that the Catholic Church’s position on justification “has no direct grounds in the Scripture” is your personal interpretation. At least as you set it out here, it is not even an argument– just a simple assertion. Moreover, your statement that it is a “gigantic logical leap” from the belief that “one is not justified by faith alone” to “the Catholic position is correct” is also a simple assertion. I may not have made a detailed argument for my acceptance of the Catholic position, but I at least attempted to go further than making assertions.
How you know that you are correct about the Church’s position on justification, as related to the Scriptures’ teaching? Have you actually studied the Church’s position on justification directly from Church documents (rather than as quoted, perhaps out of context, by Protestants in their writings)? It is my experience that many who hold anti-Catholic beliefs do not truly know what the Church teaches, because they have not studied directly from the Source. Of course, I’m not saying that this is the case with you. I’m asking, precisely because I do not know.
On the issue of emotion in Dr. Anders’ article, as Randy has noted, anyone who has studied Calvin is bound to have some emotions about the man. It is unreasonable to expect that emotion would *not* be involved in the course of one’s discovery of , and response to, objectively disturbing truth about one’s theological “hero” (in this case, Calvin).
If you read back through your comments on this thread, it is clear that they have been marked by intense emotion– perhaps even emotion at the *expense* of argumentation, which, ironically, is what you claim to see, and find very objectionable, in Dr. Anders’ article. A further irony lies in the fact that, at least from what I have seen on this thread, people have been responding to you with quite calm, measured, thoughtful replies, and your answers to them have continued to largely consist of simple assertions characterized by strong anti-Catholic emotion. Why are you seemingly not willing to hold yourself to the same strict standards which you demand of Dr. Anders (and which you believe that he has violated in this article)?
Donald, thank you for your honest post. You did prove my point: That conversion to Romanism is mainly a result of seeking satisfaction for emotional issues. I agree.
Bodijar, having been on the forefront when people are disputing scripture, I understand that two people can see the same identical thing and draw different conclusions from it. Having re-read what I wrote above, and noting that the arrival at Rome involved quashing my emotions which ran against making that particular trip, the idea of emotional satisfaction would seem to be contraindicated. I looked for a way out, not a way in. In doing this search I ran into the following:
“Our fathers worshipped on this mountain, but you say that Jerusalem is the place where one must worship.” Jn 4:20 The Samaritan woman at the well was asking the right question, which is “where?”
It indicates that there is a right place to be. Would most Samaritans know that? I wasn’t there and cannot presume to answer for them. I am here and I have no excuses for not attempting to determine where I am supposed to be.
The second item I ran into, which I deemed applied to me was also from John, 21:22. Jesus said to him (Peter), “If I wish him (John) to remain until I come, what is it to you? You follow Me.”
What the people around me were doing was not the primary concern. The primary concern is what Jesus would have me do. Since I wasn’t especially keen for a “get thee behind me Satan” moment, I followed Him.
Why you would be surprised that men have emotions is beyond me. Why you would ascribe my move an emotional response in favor of the move would indicate that you might need to re-read what I wrote.
To be sure, at this time and in this place, there is no question that what I did inspite of my emotions was the right thing to do. I was not required to give up my emotions when I became Catholic, however they were (and are) required to conform to grace, as there are emotions proper to each time, place and situation.
Bojidar:
Your suggestion that people are drawn to Catholicism primarily on emotional grounds is an absurd overgeneralization. It is evident from experience alone that a person’s converting to some form of religion is usually going to involve some emotional factors. Those factors influence thought. If they didn’t, then love or beauty could not attract people to the truth; and if they shouldn’t, then love or beauty ought not to attract people to the truth. I’m sure you would not want to say otherwise. But it is evident from reason alone that those factors by themselves do not suffice either to justify or to discredit their decision. Emotions can, in some cases, form part of the evidence for or against their decision, but by themselves they can never be decisive. They’re just one part of the picture.
The things I’ve just said are pretty much common sense known to everybody. You are only undermining your case by proceeding as if it weren’t, or didn’t matter. But in case you don’t get the point, I’ll adduce my own example.
I’m a “cradle Catholic” who suffered a years-long crisis of faith in adolescence after being sexually molested by a Jesuit teacher of mine when I was 14. That is not a new revelation of mine; I made it publicly here, in the context of discussing the sex-abuse-and-coverup scandal. Yet I “reverted” to Catholicism as a Columbia undergraduate after an intense period of intellectual inquiry in which everything, including theism itself, was an open question for me. I double-majored in philosophy and religion for that very reason, and eventually reached a conclusion I did not welcome: that Catholicism is the truth. But even as a revert, I know all too well the knack the Catholic Church has for misusing people; believe me, she is no more a meritocracy than a democracy. Take my own case (please). I’ve always wanted to be a man of God, am fully qualified for that in an academic sense, and even have three years’ experience as director of adult education for a large urban parish. Yet, for different reasons at different stages of my life, the Catholic authorities have never seen fit to admit me to a seminary as a student, even thought I’ve taught as an adjunct in three different Catholic seminaries. There’s a lot more I could say about the experience of old Catholic friends of mine who actually did become priests. They adhere to their vocations not for the emotional or financial rewards, which in their cases are at best minimal. They adhere by grace alone.
I don’t remain a Catholic because I like being Catholic. Given my experiences in the Church, I’m emotionally ambivalent about the whole thing, to say the least. I remain Catholic simply because I am utterly convinced that Catholicism is true. It isn’t even in my worldly interest to remain Catholic.
In Houston 15 years ago, an evangelical pastor with whom I was conducting a joint bible study invited me to become an assistant pastor at his megachurch. It would have been a nice salary boost. But I couldn’t do it, for reasons that should be self-explanatory by now. Several months ago, an Orthodox bishop with whom I have several mutual friends offered to make me a priest in his rather small but canonical jurisdiction. I was strongly tempted. It wasn’t because of money–there was none involved, not even a stipend–but because I’m deeply committed to Catholic-Orthodox ecumenism and this bishop’s ecclesiology is very close to my own. But I couldn’t bring myself to break communion with Rome. So where does that leave me? I could be a clergyman, it seems, in virtually any church save my own; if I did, I’d have the status and security I’ve never managed as an adult Catholic. But I choose instead to pay the ongoing, very personal cost of being Catholic in these troubled times.
So spare me your nonsense about people becoming or remaining Catholic because they find it emotionally satisfying. Some people do become or remain Catholic partly because of how they feel about it; but some people become or remain Catholic partly in spite of how they feel about it. The question how feelings might constitute evidence for or against such a decision is not one that can be answered by easy, polemical generalizations. As I’ve already suggested, your attempt to discredit Dr Anders’ decision with such generalizations does not speak well for how your intellectual credentials have formed you.
This reminds me of those who point out that Jesus, Himself, never explicitly condemned sodomny. If Sola Scriptura does not work out then the next line of defense is to demand to find it in the words of Jesus. Then make you demand more specific yet. Jesus must use certain words or I won’t obey.
It is a game. God won’t play. If you don’t want to do His will then don’t. He won’t force you. He won’t force you physically and He won’t force you logically either. The for the church is much like the evidence for the resurrection. It is there. It is strong. But it is possible to deny it if you really want to. That is precisely the way God wants it.
So what church was Jesus referring to in Matthew 18?
I find it very odd that this discussion has not really touched on the thesis of the article.
I made the claim that Evangelicalism differs from Calvin in three crucial respects:
1) “Born-again,” conversionistic spirituality,
2) A broadminded approach to denominations,
3) A deemphasis on liturgy, sacraments, and intepretive authority.
By contrast, Calvin:
1) Encouraged a sacramental/liturgical spirituality,
2) Insisted on doctrinal unity – even on issues that Evangelicals consider unimportant,
3) Believed in a magisterial authority that exceeds what evangelicals would accept today
As one observer noted, these claims are really not controversial. Nevin and Schaaf noted them long ago. More Modern Scholars like Imbart de la Tour, Joseph Tylenda, Benno Gassmann, Kilian McDonnell, and Alexandre Ganoczy have also pointed out these “Catholic” elements in Calvin’s thought.
As I mentioned above, finding these elements in Calvin’s thought prompted me to ask,
1) If Calvin was correct in holding them,
2) Why Evangelicalism no longer holds them,
3) Which ecclesial community holds them most authentically (biblically, historically).
It seems to me the debate between Catholics and Protestants ought to be about these last three questions. Was Calvin correct in insisting on doctrinal unity and, if so, what is the proper basis for that unity? Is “born-again” spirituality authentic Christian spirituality? Was Calvin correct in his insistence on the sacramental, liturgical dimension to Christian piety? If you think Calvin was correct, then why do you think evangelicalism departed from Calvin? If Calvin was not correct, does this impugn his doctrine of Scripture? Did he misinterpret the Bible?
These are really the issues I raised. This whole thread about emotion seems utterly beside the point.
Wholly for the sake of argument, what if I am a neurotic, emotional basket case? I don’t see how this has any impact on the issues listed above.
Dr. Anders,
On behalf of CTC thanks for the excellent article and interaction. For what it’s worth, our discussion here does tend to be a little more substantial (and charitable) than some of the interaction with this post. It’s a little embarrassing actually.
I see that you have refuted Bojidar on the Ameaux case. Can you comment on Ron’s objection that Bolsec was arrested, not for merely differing with Calvin, but for being a trouble-maker of other sorts? I’m afraid I can’t afford to purchase the dissertation at the moment.
Hello “Canadian”,
Appreciated your detailed and informative listing of the ‘split-P’s’ and their Reformed ‘brothers’ in your response to Bojidar…
Have you read William B. Evans’, “DÈJÁ VU ALL OVER AGAIN? THE CONTEMPORARY REFORMED SOTERIOLOGICAL CONTROVERSY IN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE”, recently published essay? (The Westminster Theological Journal, Spring 2010 -Vol. 72.1) It is certainly germane to the topic at hand. I have provided numerous selections from the essay (with a few of my own reflections) HERE.
Grace and peace,
David
The Facts of the Bolsec Case:
Records of the City Council explain “that a physician on Friday was arrested for having spoken certain words against the Gospel in the congregation … and was brought before the magistrates by Jean de la Maisonneuve.” Calvin and the ministers, however, requested that he be prosecuted for blasphemy.
See Roget 3: 163: “qu’un médecin fust détunu pour avoir esté vendredy en la congregation, là où il pourroit avoir dict certaines paroles et aultres doctrines contre l’Évangile, que le Sr. lieutenant l’a fait répondre et l’a remis devant Messieurs par la personne de Jean de la Maisonneuve … que Calvin, au nom des autres ministres, ainsi que maistre Guillaume Farel, a requis le Conseil de faire justice dudit d’aultant qu’a blaspheme Dieu et propose faulce doctrine.”
The official interrogation (which took place in jail) was theological in nature (confirming that Bolsec was arrested for doctrinal matters).
Again – see Roget 3: 172-173.
The official deposition was filled with theological debate, in particular about the interpretation of scripture.
Bolsec:”Does he [Calvin] not confess that all articles of faith and the doctrines taught in Our Lord’s church must be proved from several manifest and evident statements [of Scripture] which cannot be construed in diverse ways and from the authority of the Holy Scripture in its entirety?” (Registres 1:104)
It goes without saying that Bolsec was also considered a trouble maker. He was a trouble maker precisely because he contradicted Calvin’s doctrine.
Again – the council documents:
Roget 3:162: “Attendu le trouble et scandale qu’a tasché de faire aujourd’hui un quidam nommé Hiérosme, comme desjà ce-devant il s’y estoit efforcé, les ministres de la parole de Dieu supplient humblement Messieurs, qu’il leur plaise le faire interroguer sur les articles suyvantz et ce, à cause que c’est matière de doctrine et de foi; néamoins, les dits ministres proposent ces articles seulement par forme d’advertissement, non pas qu’ils craignissent de se faire partie (se porter accusateurs), quand besoing serait, mais pource qu’ils se tiennent bien assures que Messieurs, avec toute leur justice, auront la cause assez recommandée. Ce leur est assez d’avertir quelles sont ces erreurs dudit maistre Hiérosme par lesquelles il a tasché de séduire et mutineer le peuple.”
Dr. Anders – thanks. Ron or anyone else – have any other objections?
Bojidar:
Logical fallacy. That emotion accompanies an action does not prove that it is the basis for that action.
My own conversion to the Catholic Church from having been a Calvinist Christian was emotional, but certainly not a result of seeking satisfaction for emotional issues. For the most part my emotion was fear that the Catholic Church might not be what reason seemed to indicate it was: the fulness of the faith of Christ.
To be sure, once I was convinced, on reasonable grounds, that the Church was, indeed, God’s unique provision for salvation, my emotions began gradually to change.
But my emotions were a response to what my mind told me, at the beginning, and to what my mind and heart, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, told me at the end. They were not, and could never be, a basis for a change which, on human grounds, was filled with as much negative as positive.
Indeed, strictly judging from my experience as a Catholic, there were many things in my Reformed church that were done far better, and that were more emotionally satisfying.
The only thing the Reformed claims lacked – insofar as they were not in harmony with the Catholic – was truth.
jj
Bojidar,
As Dr. Anders has recently commented, reminding us, that his post touched on the following points. If we are going to have frutiful conversation, it behooves us, to engage the content of the post, the ideas touched on. Trying to engage in psychological and emotional analysis from behind the computer screen is not productive and has caused this wonderful post to get bogged down in issues not even addressed by the author. You are welcome to disagree with us, but we ask that it be done charitably and done addressing the content of the post. I recommend re-reading what Dr. Anders recently posted to help get back on track. It is legitimate to ask if Calvin was right in saying that it is always fatal to leave the Church.
“I made the claim that Evangelicalism differs from Calvin in three crucial respects:
1) “Born-again,” conversionistic spirituality,
2) A broadminded approach to denominations,
3) A deemphasis on liturgy, sacraments, and intepretive authority.
By contrast, Calvin:
1) Encouraged a sacramental/liturgical spirituality,
2) Insisted on doctrinal unity – even on issues that Evangelicals consider unimportant,
3) Believed in a magisterial authority that exceeds what evangelicals would accept today
As one observer noted, these claims are really not controversial. Nevin and Schaaf noted them long ago. More Modern Scholars like Imbart de la Tour, Joseph Tylenda, Benno Gassmann, Kilian McDonnell, and Alexandre Ganoczy have also pointed out these “Catholic” elements in Calvin’s thought.
As I mentioned above, finding these elements in Calvin’s thought prompted me to ask,
1) If Calvin was correct in holding them,
2) Why Evangelicalism no longer holds them,
3) Which ecclesial community holds them most authentically (biblically, historically).”
I wanted to jump out of my office chair and react like this as I read Dr. Liccione’s response #76.
But maybe that’s just me.
Thanks, Jonathan. But I think you meant my #76.
Best,
Mike
I understand that this thread should head in another direction, a direction more in line with Dr. Anders’ wonderful, refreshing article. But, if my comment is worthwhile enough to take up the space, I just wanted to say that the first time my friend (and the individual who would later become my Catholic Sponsor) took me to Eucharistic Adoration, I so emotionally REJECTED the notion of the Real Presence of Christ in the monstrance before me that I felt I might vomit. Every fiber of my being was OPPOSED to Catholicism’s claims- especially those concerning the Blessed Sacrament. So, yes, Bojidar, mine was a very emotional conversion experience. These emotions, however, rather than detracting from the genuine ness of my conversion experience, in my mind, simply make it all the more real, all the more human. peace.
For my part, I’ll second some of the emotional ambivalence of Mike L’s and Herbert’s posts. I was raised in a conservative Baptist home, attended Calvin College (where I was steeped in Reformed theology and during which I joined the Christian Reformed Church, in which I remained for several years), and later received a master’s in theology from Fuller Theological Seminary (an evangelical school). I’ve certainly had plenty of training in Protestant theology, and was quite attached, both theologically and aesthetically, to the “medium-high” worship of my home Reformed congregation (the great Protestant hymns, almost BCP-ish liturgy, and so on). My family, except for the brothers of mine who have utterly rejected their Christian upbringing, remains steadfastly Protestant. My wife’s family, except for one brother-in-law, remains steadfastly Reformed (my grandfather-in-law was a prominent Presbyterian theologian, and my father-in-law is a staunch Calvinist). I came to Catholicism kicking and screaming, intent to prove all of its claims wrong, adamantly insisting that everything about Catholicism and Orthodoxy was fatally flawed. Now, after years of prayer, study and struggle with the Church Fathers and Church history, I am utterly convinced of the truth of the Catholic Church’s claims. I am not, however, thrilled with the parishes in which I find myself (lots of horrible music, some questionable liturgical practices, so-so preaching). I dearly miss the hymns I so love, the transcendent music and poetry, the powerful oratory from the pulpit. I get no satisfaction from being Catholic while my wife and the rest of my family remains not just Protestant, but most of them quite antagonistic toward Catholicism. BUT, I learned long ago not to trust my emotions alone in matters of faith, but to seek the Truth with as much humility as I can possibly muster. I pray constantly that God will guide me along His true path, in accordance with His perfect will, and I trust that as I have tried to follow Him like a child, He will lead me in the paths of Righteousness for His name’s sake.
So yes: let’s have an end to the “emotional issues” argument.
Dr. Anders,
I hope I’m not straying too far from your article, but I wonder if you could touch on Calvin’s view of the Virgin Mary. From what I’ve read, this is another area in which the modern Calvinist might be beyond the realm of comfort when faced with Calvin’s actual teaching.
Jessica
@Scott B:
I have to laugh sometimes. When, on my 51st birthday in 1993, I finished reading Newman’s ‘Apologia’ and his ‘Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine’ and realised for the first time that the Catholic faith might just be simply nothing more nor less than true, I thought, “I am really in trouble now.” The first time I walked into any Catholic place – the Newman Centre at Auckland University – I was terrified. I wondered if, possibly, I was entering a synagogue of Satan. At the nadir of my experience, in June, 1994, I experienced major psychological dissociation – forgot for a while who I was – for fear.
We converts experience emotion, Bojidar, but it doesn’t drive us into the Church. It accompanies what is, after all, for an English-speaking Protestant, real conflict because of the major distortion our post-Reformation society imposes on us. The emotion must be gone through; it can justify nothing.
If any one is interested, I have written something about my own conversion here.
jj
Forgive me if I’m perpetuating an off-topic turn here, but my experience is in the same vein as others’: my father was anti-Catholic; my mother wept when I told her I was becoming Catholic; my brother and my best friend both yelled at me. Oh yes, there is plenty of emotional “satisfaction” in all that…if one is a complete sociopath who enjoys upsetting the people he loves best, anyway.
Dr. Anders,
I have a question about a remark you made and want to give you an opportunity to possibly correct my reading of Calvin. You wrote,
“And while Calvin stopped short of the Catholic, or even the Lutheran, understanding of the Eucharist, he still retained a doctrine of the Real Presence. He taught that the Eucharist provides a “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord” and he rejected the notion that communicants receive “the Spirit only, omitting flesh and blood.”
This seems incorrect or ambiguous. From my reading, Calvin does not affirm the real presence of Christ’s humanity in the elements. What Calvin affirms is that the virtue or divine power from Christ is exemplified in the sacrament when received with faith. He seems to limit the presence of Christ’s humanity to a natural mode of presence in heaven. One can speak as if the substance of Christ’s humanity is present in the elements since his divine power is and there is virtually no difference. But there is no intrinsic union between the human flesh of Christ and the elements for him.
David,
re: #80
I am not Catholic, but my interest and investigation in the ancient church came from reading Mathison’s “Shape of Sola Scriptura”. That book helped make plain to me that something was wrong with sola scriptura itself.
I skimmed the article on your blog and found this all to be true when I was peeking in on the FV/Truly Reformed debates a few years back. Many of the Reformed bodies tried to act as if they had ecumenical conciliar authority to spank those FV bad boys into submission or anathema. Rather amusing to see weakness display itself as if it were strength.
In providing a very incomplete list of denominations (just Reformed and Presbyterian, let alone the other hordes) I was highlighting for Bojidar that what he calls “the only choice–Reformed Christianity” really amounts to his personal choice of one from the smorgasbord of many. And those bodies are not just separated by semantics as he seemed to imply. Some of them are schisms of schisms of schisms not in communion with one another which leads not a choice of governance but a choice of faith.
Response to Perry:
Let me define my terms.
Real Presence: doctrine that Christ true body and blood are communicated in the supper.
Transubstantiation: Catholic doctrine on HOW the body and blood are communicated.
Consubstantiation: Lutheran doctrine on HOW
Mystical Presence: Calvin’s doctrine on HOW.
Calvin was very clear both in his rejection of a local presence (both Catholic and Luther’s view), and in his affirmation of a real presence.
He strongly opposed the merely symbolic view of the supper.
This is why I said he affirmed the real presence, but not the Catholic doctrine on the Eucharist.
To Canadian on Matthison’s “Shape”
I read Shape of Sola Scriptura several years ago when I was thinking of entering the Church. I found it very unsatisfying.
Matthison’s position is not original. He borrowed his thesis from an essay by Heiko Oberman, published in Dawn of the Reformation. The essay is called “Quo vadis, Petre? Tradition from Irenaeus to Humani Generis.”
Oberman’s essay is very good, and does a good job of distinguishing various nuances in the Scripture/Tradition debate.
Oberman argues that there are really three concepts of tradition:
1) Tradition as the custodial function of the church – preserving the canon, the “shape” of the creed and rule of faith, etc.
2) Tradition as unwritten content, in addition to Scripture, that is nevertheless part of the deposit of faith
3) Tradition in the Pius IX sense: “I am tradition.” The Church’s dogmatic declarations.
Oberman (and Matthison) identify the Reformers with Tradition I.
Matthison’s use of the concept to defend the Reformers, however, is full of difficulties.
To begin with, even if you jettison tradition II and III, and concede only tradition I, it is obvious that the Reformers, in spite of their claims of fidelity to antiquity, were unfaithful to tradition I.
The fathers most associated with “tradition I,” like Tertullian and Ireneaus, taught that Scripture must be interpreted according to the consensus of the apostolic churches. Now, nothing could be more plain than that the Reformer’s departed from that consensus. Compare Luther to the 2nd century fathers, for example, on the doctrine of justification.
2nd – the integrity of tradition I is guaranteed by apostolic succession – which the Reformers lack. Why does Matthison think Calvin is a valid bearer of that tradition?
But there are also very good historical reasons for holding tradition II and III.
Even if the 2nd century fathers did not articulate a doctrine of tradition II, it is obvious that they held doctrines on the basis of tradition II. For example, Tertullian and Ireneaus appeal to the authority of the apostolic sees as a matter of doctrine. But the identity of those sees is not contained in Scripture. They could only know these things from unwritten tradition. Also – Sunday worship, infant baptism, the sign of the cross, etc. etc.
I won’t defend tradition III here, since that is another esssay, but suffice it to say that I am convinced that Christ intended it when he founded the church and gave her the gift of infallibility.
So – I agree that the Reformers appealed to tradition I. But they do so illegitimately. Tradition I is not on their side.
Just a side note to David Anders #94: Keith Mathison wrote an excellent book titled Given for You that describes Calvin’s view. It seems it is often not understood well amongst the Reformed.
-David Meyer
Side Note to David Meyer:
John Williamson Nevin wrote The Mystical Presence in 1846, also to defend Calvin’s doctrine of the Supper. Every Reformed Christian should read Nevin’s book. One of the classics of Reformed theology, in my opinion.
Dr. Anders,
re: #95
Thanks for your comment. I may not have been clear in my comment you are referencing but I was saying that it was actually Mathison’s book that catapulted me toward the ancient church and Catholicism/Orthodoxy. I found that in his attempts to defend a more historical view of scripture and the church his efforts to stop at the Reformation was like trying to get off a train at full speed by jumping off at one’s desired spot knowing that you couldn’t continue to the logical destination. It is always funny how that train for Protestants seems to jump track and go on hidden and invisible, then suddenly show up in the first century. Now your remarks about Trad 2 and 3 are interesting and need to be fleshed out more in this discernment process. Thanks for your fine original post, by the way.
David,
I appreciate the sense in which Calvin’s doctrine falls under the rubric of “real presence.” For example: A man is “really present” in a phone conversation, even though no one would confuse the phone lines and receiver with the man himself. However, because the phrase is so elastic, and so popular among so many folks, having significantly different understandings of what is denoted by “real presence,” I think it best to be more specific, in order to avoid equivocation. Thus, taking my cue from the terms themselves, my definition of “real presence” would have to express both “where (in what sense “present”)?” and “in what mode (in what sense “real”)?”
Defining the “real presence” without reference to these questions, focusing instead on the *communication* of the Body and Blood, is, potentially, to define something other than the consecrated species, which would subtly shift the subject of the definition, resulting in equivocation. If, by “real presence” we are referring to the consecrated elements themselves, we are primarily concerned to indicate *what* these elements are. This *what* question is distinct from the *how* question. I don’t think that “transubstantiation” is so much an answer to the latter as to the former; thus, I understand transubstantiation as a statement of the Real Presence, in terms of what the consecrated species really are.
There is an important distinction between the eucharistic elements as a *means of receiving* Christ’s body and blood and the eucharist as simply *being* Christ’s body and blood (which is how I define “real presence”). The reason that Calvin cannot bear the doctrine of transubstatiation is that ( it seems to me) he cannot affirm that the consecrated species are, in themselves, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. I would be happy to be corrected on this point.
Calvin’s eucharistic doctrine might be taken to indicate an “objective” presence in the consecrated species (par. 11–17), and his statements to the contrary (par. 42) could be taken as a mere rejection of “local” presence, which is distinct from “substantial” presence (the Catholic view). Calvin sort of acknowledges this distinction (par. 41), but I cannot escape the impression that he sharply distinguishes the substance of Christ from the consecrated species themselves. Perhaps Calvin was responding to a deformed construal of transubstantiation/real presence. Thomas Aquinas, for example, denied a local presence of Christ in the eucharist (in the sense that a local presence entails extension in space). I have heard it remarked that the actual Catholic view, “substantial presence” (i.e., transubstantiation), is closer to Calvin (and vice versa) than is sometimes supposed.
Dr Anders (#95):
I didn’t know that Mathison was following Oberman, since I haven’t read Mathison’s stuff. But I have read Oberman’s essay, and I did so because Protestant scholars I was debating a few years ago kept hammering me over the head with it.
I agree it’s much better than the usual polemics, but it suffers from two serious difficulties. First, it doesn’t take account of Vatican II’s dogmatic constitution on divine revelation, Dei Verbum, for the very good reason that Oberman wrote his essay at virtually the same time that successive drafts of DV were being debated at the Council. Hence, some of his criticisms of Catholic doctrine on the Scripture/Tradition relationship were outdated almost as soon as he published them. Second, and accordingly, I would not accept his Tradition I-II-III schema as an entirely accurate representation of Catholic teaching. Although Vatican II’s word on all this is probably not the last, I am especially taken with DV §10 (footnotes omitted, emphasis added):
That doesn’t quite fit into Oberman’s schema. Although DV doesn’t say so explicitly, it’s pretty obvious that Scripture has come to be seen as the written side of what’s “handed on,” i.e. of Tradition. That makes sense inasmuch as the NT itself was written in light of paradosis through kerygma. And what about magisterial statements by the successors of the Apostles–at least those made with the Church’s full authority?
They are indeed one kind of thing that’s “handed on,” and thus count as “tradition” in a sense distinct from ‘the word of God’–a phrase itself used by DV to refer to the same thing referred to by ‘the deposit of faith’. To that extent, Oberman is right. But DV as a whole doesn’t seem to allow for taking post-apostolic magisterial statements as anything more than “authentic interpretations” of Tradition in the primary sense of the term. That’s why the Church teaches that Scripture is “God-breathed” but does not say that even about doctrines taught infallibly by the Church.
I could go on, but this isn’t a faculty colloquium–or if it is, I should let some others have the floor!
Best,
Mike
Dr. Anders,
Thank you for the reply. I appreciate you taking the time to do so.
While it is true that Calvin and say Aquinas (ST tertia pars, 75, 1 ad. 3) reject a local mode of presence this leaves untouched the idea that the humanity of Christ is in the elements. (In Thomas’ commentary on the Sentences he says Christ’s humanityis only locally in heaven as well. Sent 4, dist x, qu. 1, art. 1, sol. ad. 5) So for example, often, though not always high Church Anglican authors will distinguish their view from Continental Protestant bodies by speaking of real presence in the elements while denying a local mode or circumscribing presence.
More over, Receptionism takes the body and blood to be genuinely communicated to the believer, just not in the elements. But Calvin’s view seems to me to fall short of Receptionism since Calvin doesn’t think that the genuine humanity of Christ is in fact communicated to the believer, but rather some manifestation of divine power or virtue.
The doctrine of the Real Presence seems to me to be the idea that Christ is in the elements, albeit in a non-cirsubscribing and non-natural mode of presence.
As an aside, ISTM that Lutherans fairly often deny the claim that they endorse Consubstantiation.
In any case, ISTM that what Calvin means by “real presence” is a real benefit or a real communication of divine virtue to the believer, but not that the humanity of Christ is in fact communicated in the elements. That is, I take Calvinist’s to equivocate on the term “real presence.”
Andrew Preslar,
I think we agree in our reading of Calvin. The mode of reception is a different question as to what the thing is. “Means” can be said in many ways. And many employ the language of real presence having read material from Calvin or say Wallace’ work on the former’s view of the eucharist thinking that their position finds a place in patristic theology, when in fact it doesn’t. I for one can’t see any significant difference between say Cranmer’s virtualism and Calvin’s view. They both employ the language of “real presence” but deny that the humanity of Christ is conveyed through the means or is in the believer. Hence their view is weaker or less robust metaphysically speaking (it commits one to affirming less) than even Receptionism.
ISTM that the underlying reason why Calvin can’t admit that Christ’s humanity is present in the elements is the idea that for it to be so would annihilate the individual existence as such of the elements qua elements. That is, the humanity of Christ would replace the form of the thing (elements) and so it would cease to be that thing (since substance as individual existence entails that specific form), since its formal existence ceases. Rome it seems will grant a change in form, but deny that the elemental annihilation as it were takes place. For Calvin then, the humanityof Christ can only be capable of a natural mode of presence, while it could be moved around by acts of divine will and power. Hence it could only be extrinsically immortal.
Perry,
I’m inclined to agree with your take on these things, at least as you’ve expressed it thus far. I have my own take, which affirms transubstantiation but denies that the visible elements after consecration are non-inhering accidents. But this isn’t the place to discuss that. Perhaps we could discuss it in another setting if you’re interested.
Best,
Mike
Further clarification on Calvin and presence – real, substantial, or virtual.
Inst. 4.17.5: “we are quickened by a real participation of him.”
Inst. 4.17.11: “For the promises present him to us, not that we may rest in contemplation merely and naked notion, but that we may enjoy him in the way of real participation . . . I say, then, that in the mystery of the Supper . . . Christ is truly presented to us.”
Inst. 4.17.17: “true and substantial partaking of the body and blood of the Lord”
Inst. 4:17.10:”It may seem incredible indeed that the flesh of Christ should reach us from such immense local distance . . .”
De vera participatione carnis et sanguinis Christi in sacra coena:
“The controversy is simply on the mode of eating, since we openly and ingenuously affirm,that Christ becomes ours . . . that his body also was not only once offered for our salvation . . . but is daily extended to us for our nourishment.”
– cited in J.W. Nevin, Mystical Presence, ed. Augustine Thompson, O.P., Eugene, OR, 2000.
Note also J.W. Nevin’s own assessment of Calvin’s view: “In whatever way it might be supposed to occur, he held and taught the fact of a real presence of the Savior’s human life . . . in the sacramental transaction.” (p.69)
If we defer to Calvin’s own language, he taught a “real and substantial” presence of Christ in the Supper, but not a local presence.
However, I completely agree that these very same terms – real, substantial, local – are given a different signification in Catholic theology. Knowing that, Calvin can be accused of some dissimulation for using terms that had already acquired a technical precision in the academic theology of his day.
Also, Andrew and Perry are correct about Calvin rejecting any presence in the physical host. Calvin had a horror of Eucharistic adoration, or that the “real” presence might be distributed physically to the impious or the unbeliever.
“Calvin had a horror of Eucharistic adoration, or that the “real” presence might be distributed physically to the impious or the unbeliever.”
Dr. Anders,
Can you bring some clarity here for me? It seems that the Reformed say that the Supper is beneficial by faith for the believer but I don’t how they approach Paul’s warning of judgement on those who partake unworthily (or in unbelief). Calvin somewhere taught that the believer soars into heaven and partakes of Christ there by the Spirit. Yet the unworthy certainly don’t soar into heaven to receive judgement. Clearly, to me, the scripture implies that not only is there benefit in the supper but condemnation because whether you are taking worthily or not, you come in contact with the body and blood. The judgement comes in the actual eating and drinking, so something must have changed in the elements themselves. There seems to me a clear objectivity in the supper because of Christ’s presence that effects different results in those who partake. Calvin’s view also doesn’t seem to hold up under Chalcedonian Christology but what is the Catholic view of those who are judged at the table.
Candian:
You are absolutely correct. Also very astute of you to point to Chalcedon. Calvinism has always been subject to the charge of Nestorianism. (A charge which Calvinists are obviously quick to deny.)
When I was studying Calvin, I was interested to learn how seriously Calvin took the Supper, but I was also persuaded that his doctrine was utterly untenable. Calvin concocted a very complicated theory of signs and things and mystical union in an attempt (it seems to me) to reconcile Lutheran and Zwinglian theories, but I can’t see that he has Scripture, tradition, or logic on his side.
On a related note – when you study the interaction between Calvin and those called before the consistory, it appears that his parishioners had a very difficult time following his fine nuances.
Everyday Genevans were likely to affirm either that “the bread is God,” or that it was nothing at all.
Dr. Anders,
I am not surprised to learn that the Genevans were torn between affirming that the bread is God or that it was nothing at all.
Calvin was and is hard to pin down not only on the Eucharist but on Baptism (as evidenced by the great debate raging currently in the PCA over baptismal efficacy). This is why I have asked my former conferes in the PCA (friends of mine who are TE’s) “what happens when you perform a Sacrament?” They really cannot say. In fairness to them, it seems as if the Reformed history was never able to say. DeLubac once stated in a Communio article that this has to do with the fact that Election trumps everything in Reformed soteriology, thus, there is a real reticence to ascribe any real efficacy to the Sacraments for that might do damage to the doctrine of election. I think DeLubac was right.
There were times I would read Calvin and think that through the actual bread and wine I receive Christ’s body and blood (it seems he placed heavy emphasis on the sursum corda for this view) and other times I would ask myself in reading him, “so the point of the bread and wine is….?”
I love how Father Al Kimmel put it in his eleventh law, “It doesn’t matter how vigorously you protest your belief in the eucharistic real presence: if you are not willing and eager to prostrate yourself before the Holy Gifts and adore, worship, and pray to the glorified Lord Jesus Christ, present under the forms of bread and wine, you really do not believe in it.”
Dr. Anders,
I am aware of the passages in the Institutes as well as other places. They initially persuaded me that Calvin held to more or less a receptionist view. But further study convinced me otherwise that he in fact advocated a kind of virtualism.
Consequently, the language of participation, substantial and such mean what they do for someone like Cranmer. They do not imply a real presence in the elements anymore than when other virtualists use those same terms. Thomas Aquinas also denies, as I pointed out above, a local presence and affirms a “substantial” presence. But I don’t think we are to draw from that the conclusion that Calvin taught transubstantiation or anything like what Aquinas had in mind. What matters is how Calvin used the terms and it seems that he used them in a virtualistic way. Those terms do not preclude a virtualist position.
I grant that Calvin says that the controversy is over the mode of eating, but that assumes that Calvin’s self assessment of the situation is correct. Reading the material from the Colloquy of Montbeliard for example where the participants took the matter to be the same convinced me that their self assessment was incorrect. The issues were Christological. The same I think is true of Calvin.
As for Nevin seems to be influenced by a species of Idealism, which was quite popular at the time, as evidenced in his organicism and such. I think his metaphysical idealism influenced unduly his reading of such language in Calvin.
Perry,
I completely agree with you. This is why I said:
“these very same terms – real, substantial, local – are given a different signification in Catholic theology. Knowing that, Calvin can be accused of some dissimulation for using terms that had already acquired a technical precision in the academic theology of his day.”
Granted that Calvin uses terms like real and substantial in a non-Catholic way, and without precision, I still find his language interesting. I never said Calvin held to transubstantiation. Of course not. My main point in raising the issue was simply to point to the gulf between Calvin’s language and modern Evangelical spirituality.
Can you imagine Bill Bright or Billy Graham speaking about the sacraments or spirituality this way?
Dr. Anders,
I figured we agreed, but I wanted to nail it down. It is quite true that the average evangelical view of the eucharist fails to rise to the level of probably even Zwingli.
But something else to note about Calvin. If a virtualist gloss of his view is correct and the substantial and the virtual are not really distinguishable, it seems that this implies a kind of docetism about the humanity of Christ. By “really” I mean in the scholastic sense of separable. I realize that I am not the first to worry about this kind of docetism in Calvin, but better right than original I suppose.
Dr. Anders,
Is there any cheaper way of getting a copy of your dissertation besides ordering it from the University of Iowa?
As one who remains in the evangelical Reformed fold, I must say that I relate to much of what Dr. Anders is saying, especially after having read Bruce Gordon’s new biography of Calvin. I was reading it this winter, at the same time a nasty, bitter debate was being publicly waged by John Frame and Michael Horton, two of today’s leading Reformed theologians.
I couldn’t help but thinking that nothing has changed in nearly 500 years. Gordon (who I assume is Reformed) demonstrates throughout his fine biography that the leaders of the Reformed churches in Switzerland, Germany, and France all waged war with each other from the very beginning.
I had expected to come away with more confidence in Calvin and the early Reformers, but I realize now that it was all built on a very shaky foundation.
As a cradle Catholic I have often wondered what it is that so sharply divides Catholics and Protestants. I have heard that “preacher’s preach against my kind.” This is so disturbing to me. I love my Catholic faith and have ALWAYS had a VERY deep and personal relationship with my Lord, Jesus Christ. I love Him more and more each and every day. He has led me where no man can. I love this article as it now makes me see more clearly why Protestants cannot understand what I do understand about the Catholic faith. I would just love to see more people truly experience the fullness in the joy that Catholicism gives me. I am just sorry that they cannot have this REAL divine experience. So MANY Catholics do have this same wonderful personal relationship with Him. Praise God from Whom all blessings flow. Thank you Dr. Anders for so eloquently sharing your experience with us all.
Julie, I’m like you here. I’ve been reading blogs like this one and InternetMonk among others along with books like “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” and the “Surprised by Truth” series to understand why there is such a divide. Growing up securely Catholic for a long time I wasn’t aware of how deep runs the rift between Catholic and Protestant . In my small town Catholics and Protestants mostly got along, but when I got to college and encountered aggressive evangelism from certain Evangelical / Fundamentalist groups I began to see.
I agree but I think we should be more positive in approaching those currently not in full communion with the Catholic Church. The reason being that because of the difference in paradigm you see in this post and comments, it is absolutely impossible for them to see the truth of your statement. They can’t interpret it in any reasonable way of understanding from within their paradigm.
It is very much like two different computer languages that are largely similar, use mostly the same rules and perform all the same basic functions but differ in structure and syntax in a handful of fundamental and countless minuscule ways.
What that means in practice is that if us Catholic want to effectively talk about the faith and explain Catholicism to Protestants we have to learn how they think and how to translate into their code / paradigm. It is wonderful, but rare that I encounter a Protestant that has enough actual understanding of the Church to be able to directly dialogue about the faith without me having to figure out how to put things in terms that won’t be misinterpreted, or trigger exploding heresy assumptions.
Julie,
After years as a Reformed Protestant, I am in the process of returning to the Catholic Church (which I did not know or understand well as a Catholic). I have been a member of some of the most Biblically thoughtful churches that I believe are to be found in the Reformed Protestant tradition. However, I *cannot* say, from what I saw, that these churches are very strong in emphasizing the role of the early Church Fathers in one’s interpretation of Scripture. This is *very important*, in regard to your question of what sharply divides Catholics and Protestants.
At this point, in my view, much experience with the early Church Fathers will logically take a Protestant to either the Catholic Church, to Eastern Orthodoxy, or to the view that while the Church Fathers may have held to certain interpretations of the Bible, it is ultimately *my personal interpretation* of the Bible that trumps everything else. I don’t write this to be uncharitable to my Protestant brothers and sisters– not at all. Until recently, I was one of them. I still love them very much.
However, when I was a Protestant, it was ultimately my personal interpretation of the Bible that I used to evaluate and “judge” the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Church Fathers, and the Catholic Church as a whole. If my interpretation judged them to be Biblically right on an issue, then they were “Biblical” on that issue. If my interpretation judged them to be Biblically wrong on an issue, then they were simply “unBiblical” on that issue.
This gets to the heart of what divides Catholics and Protestants. Catholics submit (or are logically, consistently supposed to submit, as Catholics) to the magisterial, sacramental, teaching, and interpretive authority of the Church, because Christ founded that authority. Catholics don’t try to personally interpret the Bible, from their own understanding, because the Church is the divinely appointed interpretive authority. For Protestants though, despite what they say about “I submit only to what the Bible teaches” and “The Bible is my final authority for faith and practice,” it is ultimately *their personal interpretation(s)* of the Bible to which they are submitting. Not “the Bible alone,” but their understanding of what the Bible teaches.
As anyone can see about Protestantism, their are hundreds, if not thousands, of different interpretations of what the Bible teaches, which explains the many different Protestant denominations. Now, a Protestant might say, “Well, ok, but all Protestants do agree on justification by faith alone, and that unites us all against the Catholic Church”– but now, even among Protestants, they are beginning to quarrel over this very doctrine and how to best think of it and talk about it. Protestants don’t just “fight with” Catholics. Sadly, very often, they fight among themselves. I speak from personal knowledge and experience.
As for why so many Protestants don’t see Catholics as having a personal relationship with Christ, much of the time, I think it is due to different ways of speaking about things among Catholics and Protestants. My ex-Catholic, very Protestant roommate strongly asserted to me, a few nights ago, that “Catholics worship saints.” He said this because Catholics pray to saints, or more properly, Catholics ask saints to pray *for* us to God. In my roommate’s view, this is worship of saints. He is mistaken, but it is what he believes, as an ex-Catholic Protestant.
Some of the division between Catholics and Protestants can also be explained, partially, by individual Catholics who may take certain Catholic practices too far, beyond what the Church teaches. My roommate claims that in his years as a Catholic, he almost never heard Catholics speak of praying to God personally. In his memories of his experiences with fellow Catholics (and memories can be deceiving…), he claims that he heard them speak of praying to Mary, and praying to this or that Saint, to help them with this or that problem– but he says that he rarely heard Catholics mention praying to God directly. I replied to him that if that is true, it is very unfortunate, and that it *does not* reflect what the Church officially teaches. Of course, the Church teaching is not “either/or” (either pray to God, or ask saints to pray to God for us), but it is “both/and.” My roommate’s response is that he never heard that understanding from the Catholics whom he knew.
If this recounting from my roommate, of his time as a Catholic, is accurate, it is very sad. It highlights the need for Catholics to *know* their faith, to read and study the Bible and the Catechism together, to not take what they might hear from Catholics around them, to always be the truth about Church teaching. The more that Catholics know their faith and can explain it to Protestants, the healing of divisions there can be between Protestants and Catholics. This site is a good example of Catholics really knowing their faith, and it has helped greatly in bringing *this* ex-Catholic and fervent Protestant back home to the Church! Blessings to you, my sister in Christ!
This is an excellent article — so elucidating. Thank you! I look forward to EWTN Live this week!
The early church that Jesus found was Catholic…..
Christopher — I’ve been on the fence for many years now, having studied RCism and Orthodoxy until I’m nearly crazy! I remain a very disenchanted evangelical Protestant, but unable to make the leap to RCsim, in part because of many of the same observations that your roommate has.
Catholic apologists, and especially recent converts, tend to be very defensive when it comes to the issue of the proper teaching of the communion of the saints. “Sure,” you say, “many Catholics have it all wrong…they shouldn’t be PRAYING TO Mary and all the saints. I’ve been hearing the argument for years that it’s all because of poor catechism, but I just don’t buy it.
But Christopher, I challenge you to be honest in admitting that millions of Catholics do just that. Then one has to ask himself, where is the fruit?
If indeed the Catholic Church is the one true Church, why is it that after 2000 years, there are so many clueless Catholics who PRAY TO Mary and hundreds of other saints every day?
Jesus said that we would know them by their fruit. I just don’t see it.
Jim,
Honestly, I can’t comment as to how many Catholics literally “pray to Mary,” because as a convert to Catholicism from agnosticism, many, many years ago, I didn’t actually stay in the Church long enough to ascertain much about the prayer lives of Catholics around me. Now, I’m coming back to the Church after being a Protestant for several years, but I’m still trying to arrange a time with the priest for Confession and haven’t been back to Mass yet. (There is the ongoing issue of transportation for me, as I have a physical disability and am unable to drive.)
About the respective fruit of Catholics and Protestants, I’m not sure that that is the issue to use to determine whether or not the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, with the continuing principle of apostolic succession, to this day. Actually, I’m fairly sure that the fruit of Catholics is *not* the right issue to use to make that determination, because the practice of some people who claim to be Catholic simply does not determine whether or not the Church is what she claims to be.
What *is* determinative, here, is the answer to the question (as I implied above), did Christ found one *visible* Church, with *continuing apostolic succession*, to teach and lead His people to this very day? Bryan Cross has written about this question here: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
One other thought– from my time as a Protestant, I know that it can be easy to criticize the supposed “lack of fruit” among Catholics, but is that not largely because the Catholic Church *is* one visible Church? What about the prosperity Gospel among some Protestants, or the “I’m a Christian, because I prayed a prayer, but now I’m living however I want, because I’m saved” phenomenon among Protestants? The latter tendency is HUGE in certain camps of Protestantism.
Of course, it’s not always as easy to criticize the “fruit” of Protestants as it is the fruit of Catholics, because Protestants can always point to “sound, Biblical” Protestant churches, and simply disavow themselves of the wackier churches, while the Catholic Church is One Visible Church, with parishes of varying degrees of faithfulness to official Catholic teaching (which has implications for individual Catholics).
There is “official Catholic teaching” in the Catholic Church though, by which the faithfulness of Catholics can be assessed. Where is the “official Protestant teaching” that can bind the consciences of Protestants, and by which their faithfulness can be assessed? It seems to me that such “official Protestant teaching” is a moving target, moving with the winds of cultural change. Until 1930, all Protestant denominations condemned artificial contraception as rebellion against God’s design of our sexuality. Now, in Protestantism, the acceptability of artificial contraception is hardly even questioned.
Very interesting read and I am a recent convert to Roman Catholicism in 2008. My first church was a non-denominational Christian church similar to Charismatic churches in my view. What is the evidence for Calvinist followers descending into anarchy?
Jim and Christopher
(Welcome Back BTW Christopher – I’m praying for you and I hope you can arrange transportation very soon, if there is anything I can do….)
As for the practice of the ‘average’ Catholic regarding prayer to Saints, speaking as a cradle Catholic, I don’t really see it being a common problem that Catholics misunderstand this particular doctrine / practice. In the younger generation, other than the Hail Mary, a good many ‘average’ Catholics never make a petition to any Saint at all! The ones that do, in my observation, generally understand exactly what an intercession is and what a Saint is and there isn’t a hint of idolatry. Whether they use sufficiently nuanced language to properly reflect that understanding to a typical inquiring protestant with a background in formal theology is of course another matter entirely.
GNW_Paul,
Thank you for your prayers and the welcome back Home. About the arranging of transportation to and from Confession (and to and from church generally), if I don’t hear from the priest by Thursday, I will call the parish office to see if I can speak to him. He is 80 years old; he may have forgotten to call me, or he may not be feeling well. He’s a wonderful man, but age does have its effects of all of us, so I’m trying to give him time. I live in New Mexico, and I think that you are in another region of the U.S., so I’m not sure if there is anything you can do for me, personally, other than pray (which is important, and I thank you again!).
Eric,
The disunity among Calvinists (also known as “Reformed Christians,” though some Reformed will even quarrel about how broadly that term should be applied!) is great and wide. Even simply among one “camp” of the Reformed– Presbyterians–, there are so many different denominations that some Presbyterians jokingly use the term, the “split P’s!”
Among “five-point Calvinists” more generally (not just Presbyterians), some believe that the charismatic gifts are still in use today, such as John Piper, Sam Storms, and D.A. Carson. However, other Calvinists, such as those in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, believe that the entire charismatic movement is Biblically mistaken and even dangerous. Years ago, one OPC minister was actually disciplined for praying in tongues (using a “private prayer language”) in his own house! (The Catholic Church broadly accepts the charismatic movement in the Church, though discernment is always needed.)
From what I have read, John Calvin had quite a high view of his own authority, as a church leader, and he believed that church authority was to be submitted to and obeyed by Christians. In that light, I have to wonder what he would think about the disunity and disagreements among Christians who claim to be “Calvinists” (as I did myself until earlier this year).
A reminder for those following this thread: Dr. Anders will be on EWTN Live tonight at 7 PM CST (8 EST) talking about “Protestant Theology before and after the Reformation.”
1. God is an awesome God and it will be fruitful to know who God is
2. We are a wonderful new Creation in Christ. It is fruitful to know who we are, and WILL always be very uplifting and inspiration to come to know more, understand more, and believe who we are in Christ
3. Experience the overwhelming peace and contentment and a joy unspeakable that comes from knowing the Love of God.
Why focus on “theology”? How about preaching the good news of the Gospel, that Jesus died, rose again, giving us forgiveness of sin, and making us a new creation. His blood on the cross, and resurrection has made us righteous, a gift of salvation thru no effort of our own. That is the good news about the Love of God, and we are to Live by Faith.
Why not focus on helping people come to know, understand, and believe who they are in Christ and our awesome new nature, wonderfully created with so many attributes and promises.
That is why I challenge you with tough questions about what you believe. For example, so many believe God commands us to be obedient. My question is HOW do you “try” to be obedient. If not by belief, then I ask, which of the 613 Old Testament Laws do you follow, which ones do you feel it’s ok to be disobedient? If you cannot answer that question, then I suggest you don’t know who you are.
Here’s the answer, plain and simple… Live by Faith, not by sight (senses, or thoughts):
(Gal 2:20) –
YOU have been crucified with Christ;
it is no longer YOU who live,
but Christ lives in YOU;
and the life which YOU now live in the flesh
YOU live by faith in the Son of God,
who loved YOU
and gave Himself for YOU.
https://www.mychristianidentity.com/page5.html
When you desire to know who God is, who we are in Christ, and His Love for us; then EVERY other issue is resolved so as to experience the Peace, Joy, and Love of His Kingdom, now.
Living by Faith means that as Christians, we are no longer in “bondage to the law” and instead in bondage to Christ to “perfectly” follow every law; that’s a spiritual truth.
Yet we live in a world with laws that exist in the physical realm. As long as we live in America, with our Constitution as written, it’s our responsibility as a citizen to participate in society, with all of it’s laws. However, it must be understood, there is a difference following the laws of the land, compared what it means to live by Faith. Following and/or violating America’s laws have benefits and consequences, just as you experience the benefits of following or consequences of violating SPIRITUAL LAWS AND PRINCIPLES.
Think about this: What benefit do you get from following any law of government compared to benefits from following spiritual laws.
For example: There is no U.S. law that states you MUST give to a Charity; There is no 11th Commandment, or even one of the 613 Old Testament Law that says you must give to any one particular Charity; however there is tax benefit and a spiritual principle (and benefit) in giving to a Charity? That is an example of the difference between a physical law, and spiritual Law, and a spiritual principle.
There are spiritual consequences to actions in the physical realm, and just like there are spiritual laws and principles. If it seems my “focus” has gone a little overboard on politics, I apologize. The intent is to use politics to make people aware of the foundation of our country. That foundation includes founders, with documents and a Constitution that embraces God as the source of our existence, with all rights, values, and laws originating from God, not government. I realize I get off track from that message a lot.
If you can’t answer a simple question, what does it mean to “live by Faith”, or the difference between “being in Christ” compared to “living in Christ”… who cares what you believe about Calvin, the Pope, or the Church you go to?
I am Catholic but I still respect the Presbyterians and most other Christian denominations. Why do we exaggerate in our arguments? Doesn’t this have a tendency to polarize and who do we persuade when we do this?
Eric,
How has anyone exaggerated here? Speaking for myself, I have written many times, in my comments here at Called to Communion, that I love my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. Until recently, I was a Protestant myself. You asked a question about the evidence for Calvinists “falling into anarchy.” Actually, you used more extreme language than I would have. There is great division and disagreement among the various camps of Calvinists, but I wouldn’t describe the situation as “anarchy.”
Anarchy means that there is no ultimate governing body and/or no governing rules. All Protestants have at least one governing rule: the ultimate right of the Christian to reach conclusions about Biblical teaching by the “illumination of the Holy Spirit,” without an authoritative Magisterium. One can look at the history of Protestantism and easily see the results of this one governing rule. Exaggerations are one thing. The objective evidence of history is another.
W A Gluck,
You ask, “Why focus on ‘theology'”? However, your comment is filled with theological statements about what you believe the Bible teaches.
There is simply no way to be a “non-theological Christian.” Every Christian has a theology. Whether it is a *consciously held* theology is another matter. One question to begin with here is, how do you know that your theology of justification and righteousness through faith alone is truly what the Bible teaches?
Hello Christopher,
Sorry for my lack of specificity. I was referring to Dr. Ander’s paragraph and last sentence below:
A Calvinist Discovers Catholicism
I grew up believing that Evangelicalism was “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” I learned from Protestant Church history that it was hardly older than Whitefield, and certainly not the faith of the Protestant Reformers. What to do? Should I go back to the sixteenth century and become an authentic Calvinist? I already knew that Calvin himself, for all his insistence on unity and authority, had been unable to deliver the goods. His own followers descended into anarchy and individualism.
I agree with your definition of anarchy, which is why I asked my question. Do you agree that this last sentence from the above paragraph is an exaggeration because it uses the word anarchy?
Yes, Calvin opposed “theological diversity.” He believed there was only ONE TRUE GOD.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Dr. Anders, terrific job tonight on EWTN Live!
Eric,
On the face of it, yes, the word “anarchy” seems to be an exaggeration there. Perhaps Dr. Anders used that word in a rhetorical, somewhat hyperbolic way to make a point, but I won’t attempt to answer for him.
John Lofton,
Yes, Calvin believed that there was only one true God. Catholics believe the same.
Dr. Anders,
As Bryan said, great job tonight on EWTN! This show was worthy of ordering on DVD! Perhaps some of my Protestant friends will be willing to watch it, and it may open doors for dialogue!
Perhaps John Lofton, Recovering Republican is pointing out that Calvin was justified for quelling theological diversity because Calvin believed there is one God and therefore one theology (he was being consistent). If that’s what he’s getting at, I agree wholeheartedly. There is one faith, one Lord, one baptism. Dr. Anders article was not meant to blame Calvin for being opposed to theological diversity, but to point out that the Protestant world has strayed so far from the vision of its founders and to ask, given that Calvin believed he had the one theology, whether Calvin was right, and how we might know.
I’d like to ask a Calvin critic to do something for me, please. Give me one direct Calvin quote (and its specific source) and then show me from Scripture, specific passages, where Calvin was wrong. Thank you.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Dear John,
We’re all amongst friends here, so I hope you will soon feel comfortable dropping the hefty signature block.
Regarding your challenge, it seems overly broad, so not really relevant to this article. Also, judging from your word choice, it also seems like a bit of a set-up. I suspect that I could show you a specific and cited Calvin quote, and a specifc and cited Scriptural quote, and then write out some analysis of why the two are inconsistent. (I imagine that going single-citation by single-citation, your terms of engagement, we could scandalize any theologian.) But what would that prove? You will reply with other passages that you will claim counteract the Scripture I mentioned, and support Calvin’s view. Doesn’t this seem like a prelude to futility?
Peace in Christ,
Tom B.
Dear Tom: Instead of trying to predict the future, why don’t you do what I ask and let’s see what happens? — if you are a Calvin critic. And my request was very specific, not “overly broad” at all. Thank you.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John,
See this thread.
If that does no suffice than you can always go to a sola scriptura affirming website of the Arminian persuasion like this one for example which argue that Calvin’s theology is unbiblical in many other ways.
John – it seems to me that your request pre-supposes two things that are at question in the Calvinism-vs-Catholicism debate:
Scripture alone
private interpretation
Your question seems to me to presuppose the answers.
jj
[…] See the full article, “How John Calvin Made me a Catholic” here. […]
Calvin vs. Scripture:
“All the works which proceed from us, so as properly to be called our own, are vicious, and therefore they can do nothing but displease God, and be rejected by him.” – Catechism of the Church of Geneva
“God ‘will give to each person according to what he has done.’ To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. ” – Romans 2:6-7
I was sitting in my jammys on my couch last night watching an intelligent, theological conversation about specific topics on a broadcast television station devoted to proclaiming the truth of Catholicism. It struck me how imposible this would be for any theological heirs of the Reformation to do. (Ever seen TBN?) Having descended into what I have experienced as theological anarchy, they could never find enough supporters from their persuasion to keep them on the air. (imagine “TULIP Television Network: Proclaiming the joys of the Doctrines of Grace 24/7!”)
The reasons why this imaginary station could never happen are the reasons why “anarchy” is the perfect word to describe the situation.
Excellent job on EWTN Live Dr. Anders! Bringing the conversation from Calvin to the gospel of Evangelicalism made clear how far Evangelicalism has strayed from itself, let alone from the historic faith. I hope they have you back.
David M.
And I have not yet said ANYTHING about “Scripture alone,” Mr. Jensen. What I have asked for from the Calvin critics is: Give me one direct Calvin quote (and its specific source) and then show me from Scripture, specific passages, where Calvin was wrong — a request which presupposes that, among other things, Roman Catholics (most of the ones I’ve talked with) say, yes, they believe the Bible is the Word of God.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Dear Dr. Anders,
Will you please comment on your use of the word anarchy in the last sentence of your paragraph below? In your opinion does salvation exist for those Christians outside of Roman Catholicism and why? Does this include Pentecostals and Mormons that do not baptize according Roman Catholic standards. In fact, Mormons reject the doctrine of the Trinity, which I have to strongly disagree with but they still profess Jesus Christ.
A Calvinist Discovers Catholicism
I grew up believing that Evangelicalism was “the faith once for all delivered to the saints.” I learned from Protestant Church history that it was hardly older than Whitefield, and certainly not the faith of the Protestant Reformers. What to do? Should I go back to the sixteenth century and become an authentic Calvinist? I already knew that Calvin himself, for all his insistence on unity and authority, had been unable to deliver the goods. His own followers descended into anarchy and individualism.
Any anarchist or individualist is NOT a follower of Calvin. No way.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John Lofton,
Is it your position that Calvin cannot possibly be wrong about anything in the scriptures?
Better to ask a person their position rather than first imputing it to them and THEN asking. Answer: No, that is not my position. My request is what it is.
ohn Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John,
I provided links which discuss several areas where Calvin was fundamentally wrong from scripture. Here is another specific example (it cites his writing about papal primacy and then argues contrarily from scripture).
We could argue from scripture about how we think Calvin is wrong all day but that does not address the fundamental question of authority which is the topic of this thread.
If you have a point to make about the topic please make it.
Didn’t ask, Sean, for links. Asked simply for one direct Calvin quote (and its specific source) and then show me from Scripture, specific passages, where Calvin was wrong.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John,
I gave you links because this is covered ground.
But here is one example…that has already been covered here.
From Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion Book II, Chapter 16, 10 in full.
But, apart from the Creed, we must seek for a surer exposition of Christ’s descent to hell: and the word of God furnishes us with one not only pious and holy, but replete with excellent consolation. Nothing had been done if Christ had only endured corporeal death. In order to interpose between us and God’s anger, and satisfy his righteous judgement, it was necessary that he should feel the weight of divine vengeance. Whence also it was necessary that he should engage, as it were, at close quarters with the powers of hell and the horrors of eternal death
We lately quoted from the Prophet, that the “chastisement of our peace was laid upon him” that he “was bruised for our iniquities” that he “bore our infirmities;” expressions which intimate, that, like a sponsor and surety for the guilty, and, as it were, subjected to condemnation, he undertook and paid all the penalties which must have been exacted from them, the only exception being, that the pains of death could not hold him. Hence there is nothing strange in its being said that he descended to hell, seeing he endured the death which is inflicted on the wicked by an angry God. It is frivolous and ridiculous to object that in this way the order is perverted, it being absurd that an event which preceded burial should be placed after it. But after explaining what Christ endured in the sight of man, the Creed appropriately adds the invisible and incomprehensible judgement which he endured before God, to teach us that not only was the body of Christ given up as the price of redemption, but that there was a greater and more excellent price – that he bore in his soul the tortures of condemned and ruined man.
Scripture, contra Calvin, teaches that the descent into hell was not punitive in anyway, but rather triumphant.
Christ “proclaimed the Gospel even to the dead” (εἰς τοῦτο γὰρ καὶ νεκροῖς εὐηγγελίσθη, 1 Pet 4:6). Jesus wasn’t burning in the flames like Calvin taught. He was dashing the gates of Hell, proclaiming His victory, and delivering the righteous of the Old Testament.
Don’t see the Scripture, Sean, that contradicts what Calvin says — an entire Scripture.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
Can’t say I was holding my breath there…
John,
David Anders – comment #42 has yielded to your demands to appropriate this com-box and debate on your terms in CalledToCommunion’s forum.
I can see you may have missed it because he didn’t direct it to John, simply “scripture vs. Calvin” and apparently you aren’t actually attempting to follow the broader discussion.
God Bless
John Lofton,
If the exercise is going to be one where we give examples and you merely assert, “nope, don’t see it” than we aren’t going to waste anymore time on the exercise.
John Lofton,
In addition to the many contradictions in those links that you didn’t ask for, Dr. Anders showed a clear contradiction above in 142. You haven’t yet responded (not that we don’t already know what you’re going to say).
Tim and GNW.
He did respond but the response contained an AD HOM which is contrary to the posting guidelines thus his comment was not published.
But, yes, it was pretty much what you would have expected and in the ‘nope, you are wrong’ variety.
What I don’t see, Sean, is what I requested — a Scripture or Scriptures, not a partial Scripture, out of context.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John Lofton,
Some of us are here to learn. Some of us are here to learn because we got our “arse” handed to us when we used to approach others in a condescending arrogant manner much like yours, and we discovered we didn’t know everything. You are a guest here and your demanding tone is not in keeping with what I believe is the intent of this site—cordial, gracious, others-better-than-yourself-kind-of interaction.
John Lofton,
You might have missed Dr. Anders’ comment, #142, in which he quoted from the Catechism of the Church of Geneva (which, if Calvin did not have a hand in composing himself, surely he approved of the document) and refuted it with Romans 2:6-7.
However, as others have mentioned here, could you not simply reply by presupposing “Scripture alone,” quoting other verses, and then saying that we are misunderstanding Romans 2:6-7?
The ultimate question here is, is individual interpretation of the Bible (even individual interpretation as informed by historic confessions, creeds, the thoughts of your church elders, etc.) truly the *model* that Jesus *intended* for His people?
It might be helpful for you to read Bryan Cross’ article here, entitled, “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.” In my view, this article gets to the heart of the “Protestant problem,” when it comes to their individual, and collective, interpretation(s) of Scripture. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
Something tells me that every response we give is going to be proclaimed ‘out of context….’ or ‘partial.’
John,
Why don’t you re-respond to 142 again without an ad-hominem this time. And saying “its out of context” or “I don’t see it” doesn’t suffice as a response. If you think it’s out of context, then you need to show why.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a PCA pastor shortly after starting my conversion process. He said “why would you go to Rome when the Bible is clear that we are justified by faith alone?” I responded that I didn’t think it was so clear especially when the bible explicitly says we are NOT justified by faith alone. He said “it doesn’t say that” and I tried without success to convince him that it did (couldn’t remember the verse at the time). So I later sent him an email with the verse and he decided to change his position in accordance with what the Bible said. No, actually I’m kidding he didn’t do that. He just said it was taken out of context. First he said its not there, but when confronted with hard evidence, instead of modifying his position, he subordinated the clear reading of the text to his theology.
When we read the Scripture through Calvin colored glasses, of course there aren’t any verses that contradict Calvin. In the mind of a Calvinist, no conceivable verse could be brought up that would contradict Calvin (this ought to raise red flags since according to your own doctrine, Calvin got some things wrong.)
If you are saying, Tim, that Calvin said things that contradict Scripture then, please, give me one direct Calvin quote (and its specific source) and then show me from Scripture, specific passages, where Calvin was wrong. Thank you.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
So, is Calvin infallible, or the Scriptures, or just Calvin’s interpretations of the Scriptures, or the interpretation of Calvin’s interpretation of the Scriptures?
Just wondering, because, at times, where a Catholic states, the authority of the Church (identified by the Four Marks and physically evident in sacramental Apostolic Succession) has made this infallible declaration in terms of doctrine and dogma, a Calvinist will imply that Calvin’s interpretations of the Scriptures, defining Calvinist doctrine, is infallible.
So, where a Catholic sees authentic authority as sacramental, traced from the Apostles to the college of bishops of the Catholic Church throughout Christian history, Calvinists see authentic and binding authority traced from one man 1500 years after Christ ascended into Heaven, who most certainly wasn’t alive to be commissioned by Christ in the same way that the Apostles were and there is no historical reference to him ever being ordained a bishop of the Church by any bishops of the Church with sacramental apostolic authority. So, the question here is which authority is authentic and has the power to “bind and loose” doctrine or even interpret the Scriptures in a dogmatic fashion? Calvin or the Catholic Magisterium?
If Calvin was infallible in his interpretations of Scripture, then which Calvinist community is the true one, because there are too many to count on all of my digits? Which are misinterpreting Calvin’s infallible teachings? There can only be one truly Calvinist community… does it even exist any more? And who makes the claim that they are authentically Calvinist? Can they prove it objectively? And how do they determine that Calvin’s interpretations of Scripture is infallible enough to believe that he holds the key to understanding the Scriptures in the first place? And why can’t all Calvinist’s agree on those interpretations? So, don’t we have a problem with interpretations of interpretations of interpretations, etc?
As you can see, to the dogmatic Calvinist, it really doesn’t matter if you can show that Calvin was incorrect in his interpretation of even one verse in Scripture. Because it isn’t about Scripture, it’s about authority.
Take for example James 2: “that’s not what James meant… what he meant was…”; John 6, the Last Supper narratives, 1 Corinthians 10, etc. “this is my Body”, “except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall not have life in you”, “And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?”, “Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you…” – “that’s not what Jesus or St. Paul meant… what they meant was…”; The Lord’s Prayer “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trepass against us”, “For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.” – “that’s not what Jesus meant… what he meant was…”
So, I don’t think that a Scripture debate is really helpful. When everything can be explained away as “that’s not what so and so really meant… what they really meant is what I want or need them to mean in order for my system to stay intact”, then how can there be anything constructive out of that? Why not go to the heart of the matter? Presbyterians (Calvinists) recite the Nicene Creed don’t they? Why not try and figure out what is meant by “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” as defined by the Magisterium, led by the Holy Spirit, that wrote the Creed. An intellectually honest Protestant community would never recite that Creed as to do so is to admit that there is One visible and catholic Church that can be identified by authentic sacramental apostolic succession and authority, and that to recite that sentence is to affirm that one believes everything that authority teaches. Is Calvin that authority?
John Lofton,
Please re-read what I said in 162 and respond accordingly instead of repeating your original demand. That doesn’t advance the conversation.
Eric,
I’m not intending to answer for Dr. Anders here, but the consciences of all Catholics are bound by the official teachings of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The Catechism clearly states that non-Catholic Christians are, indeed, Christians, which means that they can be saved, if they persevere in faith working through love.
As for Mormons, it is not my place to speculate on the salvation of *individual Mormons*, but given that their belief system rejects the Trinity, they are outside of historic, orthodox Christianity, as set out in the Nicene Creed, which is accepted by both Catholics and Protestants. If one rejects the Nicene Creed, historically and theologically speaking, one is not a Christian, but rather, a member of a non-Christian cult. I do not mean to speak “unlovingly” here, but the fact is, the most loving thing that one can do is to call a heresy what it is (heresy), and plead with those who subscribe to it to embrace orthodox, historic Christianity.
What doesn’t advance things, Tim, is repeatedly ignoring a person’s requests.
John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Communications Director, Institute on the Constitution
Host, “TheAmericanView” radio show
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com
John,
I think this conversation has run its (circular) course. I’ll take my bow and exit stage left – or whatever they say :-) Peace in Christ.
John,
I’m a spectator here, and not enough of a scholar to really roll up by sleeves and play, but I can play the game your way.
Just answer me simple question – yes or no.
Was John Calvin’s interpretation of scripture perfect and flawless?
John,
Dr. Anders gave his quotes in 142, Sean gave links to relevant discussion (it is relevant even though it is a link, so your dismissal of them is strange to me). You have not shown these responses to be inadequate. You have simply dismissed them. When asked for an explanation, you gave none.
If anyone is ignoring a person’s request, it is you ignoring multiple requests to explain why the responses given by Dr. Anders and Sean are inadequate. Even if they’re responses are inadequate, they have ATTEMPTED to respond to your request. You have failed to even do them that courtesy.
Since they have at least attempted to respond to your request, you should now to respond to theirs.
Gentlemen,
I found Dr. Anders’ EWTN video from last night. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qibg-m2vUno.
I hope it works.
Gentlemen,
I’m stepping in and ending this particular sub-thread, for one reason. The purpose of CTC is not for trading one-liners and ‘gotcha’s and other such tactics or back-and-forth sophistry intended to ‘score points.’ The purpose of CTC is to provide a forum for careful, considerate, intellectual dialogue about what continues to separate Protestants and Catholics, with a view to finding unity in the truth, and effecting eventual reconciliation. That goal requires a charitable and unity-pursuing stance in dialogue, one in which those who participate are all sincerely and humbly seeking to understand each other, to determine where and why we disagree, and to uncover and overcome the misunderstandings and errors that still perpetuate the Protestant-Catholic schism. And the purpose of this combox in particular is to discuss Dr. Anders’ article, whether one agrees or disagrees with various claims in the article. Raising objections to claims in the article is fine. Asking questions about the article is fine. But, this is not a place to sound-off, or vent, or even debate about anything related to John Calvin. CTC is not here to host debates, but to serve as a forum in which we may reason together in the mutual pursuit of truth in love, for the sake of achieving agreement in the truth. Feel free to discuss the article, but any further comments in the #136 subthread will not be posted.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thanks Jared. Here it is!
Dr. Anders,
Your observations about the vast differences between modern evangelicals and what those of us who were formerly Reformed Protestants would call the “magisterial reformers” (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.) are interesting and make a lot of sense when we look at the majority of the Reformed world today. Yet, as you must know from your studies, the Lutheran, Calvinist and Zwinglian branches of the Reformation were not the only new religious movements to arise in the turmoil of the 16th century. How would you apply your observations to modern evangelicals who couldn’t give a lick about Reformed theology and practice anymore than they give a lick about Catholicism? I’m referring to the strain of Christianity that traces its roots back to the so-called Radical Reformation, either formally (Anabaptist, Amish, Mennenite) or indirectly (your average evangelical “bible church” or non-denominational church that probably has more in common with the Anabaptists then they realize, historically and theologically speaking). It seems like these people could say, “We don’t look like Calvinist Protestantism and we don’t want to, nor have we ever wanted nor intended to. We haven’t lost anything of the substance of the Reformation because Calvin doesn’t represent the substance of the Reformation. Calvin and Luther came out of Rome but Rome didn’t come out of them.” I know that this website is dedicated to dialogue specifically with Reformed Christians, but I just thought I would ask because of the TV spot and because I’d like to show it to some friends of mine, but I know a lot of people who probably thought I was just as batty when I started caring what Calvin said as I am now that I care what the Catholic Church says.
David Pell,
Interestingly, my experience has been similar to yours. When I first moved from Arminian to Reformed in my theology, my evangelical “free-church” friends didn’t seem to understand why I was embracing this strange theology of “election and predestination.” Now that I am returning to the Catholic Church, both my Arminian and Reformed friends are likely to be baffled. If only more of them would read the early Church Fathers (and *not* simply as selectively quoted within Protestant writings or social circles)….
Sadly, I just spoke with a Reformed-become-Catholic friend on the phone, and it seems that the people in his former church are more practically consistent with historic Reformed theology and practice than are most evangelicals. He has been roundly rebuked, and then utterly cut off, by most of these Reformed brothers and sisters. He is “persona non grata” to them, other than as a target for evangelism, if they ever even speak to him again. I have to remind myself that they are (hopefully) doing what they are doing out of genuine concern for his soul, however misinformed and misguided…. Mary, pray for me, a sinner.
Mr. Pell,
I agree with you completely. I’ve been in many evangelical churches where not only was Calvin not an authority, he was even treated with contempt. Even in Geneva itself, Calvin’s authority was strongly resisted for a good twenty years, until French immigration pushed the electorate in his favor. Still, I was always very interested in how much Calvin (and other magisterial reformers) fought to gain authority over these dissenters. The point I wished to make was that even Calvin and Luther understood that Scripture totally alone would lead to theological confusion.
Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, I didn’t embrace Catholicism because I agreed or disagreed with Calvin, nor because I was unsatisfied with Protestantism. In the end, I became a Catholic because I was persuaded that it is true. I find the history of Protestantism interesting, and a sound test-case for the practicality of sola scriptura, but this is not what made me a Catholic. Study of Scripture, the Church fathers, and the doctors of the Church made me a Catholic.
Only on the point that Dr. Anders made and a couple of others have commented on, I have a few evangelical friends who reject Calvin as well for various reasons. One of my friends describes Calvinism as a system that requires too many “vampire rules” to keep it from falling apart and the more he dug into those “rules” he came to the conclusion that they were so tight that they strangled the Gospel message, making it cold and clinical. That was his opinion, though. I’m sure he probably feels the same way about Catholicism, he just hasn’t said so to me.
On the other hand, I have an uncle and aunt who are Evangelicals that adhere to many of Calvin’s teachings, but not all of them. That’s why I consider Evangelicalism one gigantic umbrella under which a myriad of “choose your own adventure” or “have it your way” versions of Christianity operate.
He came up with the term “vampire rules” because of what he perceives as all of the ridiculous and restrictive rules placed on “vampires” by Hollywood and books.
Thanks Christopher for your wise advice.
Does one need to undergo water baptism in order to be saved? What if the water baptism does not follow the Catholic prescription for it?
Eric,
You can get an authoritative synopsis of the Catholic position on the necessity of baptism by referring to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, especially 1257–1261. Concerning the second question, see CCC 1240 and 1256, also note the intriguing discussion in the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Baptism, under the sub-heading “Matter and Form of the Sacrament.”
Thanks Andrew. These special baptismal cases, e.g. baptism by martyrdom and desire, demonstrate how the “good thief” could be saved without the rite being performed on him. Is that correct?
My first church that was non-denominational taught that baptism was NOT needed for salvation.
Eric,
That is correct. Also, I forgot to add the link to the CE article on baptism. Scroll down to the discussion of “Form” under “Matter and Form of the Sacrament” for information on the necessity of following the Catholic prescription for Baptism, including some discussion of which discrepancies in the form of the sacrament nullify its validity, or render its validity doubtful, etc.
Interesting. However, the view of Sola Scriptura presented here is closer to the Anabaptist SOLO Scriptura as opposed to the Lutheran/Refomed SOLA Scriptura. I fully sympathize with the author in WHAT he is reacting to as someone who has rejected American evangelicalism for Confessional Lutheranism, but I cannot sympathize with his reaction.
Jason,
How exactly is SOLO Scriptura different from SOLA Scriptura? Have you read Bryan’s article on Sola Scriptura/Solo Scriptura? Doesn’t each system ultimately make the individual interpreter of Scripture the final authority?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
@Jeremy Tate, Absolutely not. Think of SOLO scriptura as me and my Bible alone out in the woods sitting under a tree. SOLA scriptura teaches that there are other authorities such as the church, pastors, creeds, confessions, tradition, and what have you, but the scriptures (which are authoritative because Jesus rose from the dead proving He is God in human flesh and He said they are authoritative, Matthew 5:18, Matthew 24:35, Matthew 26:56, Mark 12:24, Mark 14:49,Luke 24:27,Luke 24:45,John 5:39) interpreted via the historical/gramatical method (2 Peter 1:20) have the FINAL say. All authorities are subservient to ScriptureMatthew 15:3, Matthew 15:6. Thus where there is a conflict between the Bible and other authorities the Bible is always right and that which contradicts it is rejected. The only time we know for sure we are hearing God is in the scriptures(2 Timothy 3:16).
Here are some links to some discussions on Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide from a Lutheran perspective. In discussion with ex-evangelical Roman Catholics I often find that they were given deficient teaching in their evangelical churches and niether understood it then nor do they really understand it now as evidenced by numerous false assumptions evident in their arguments. I am sure it goes the other way around too as I see this on both sides of debates between Lutherans and our Calvinist brothers. Having been in both it really sticks out.
https://www.tabletalkradio.org/content/node/115
https://www.tabletalkradio.org/content/node/118
Jason,
Welcome to Called to Communion. The article that Jeremy referred to can be found here. The article argues that solo and sola scriptura have no principled distinction. It has 878 comments so far and no Protestant has argued either that the premises were false or that the conclusions didn’t follow from the premises.
Hi Jason,
Most who frequent this blog are well aware of the alleged differences between sola scriptura and solo scriptura, especially as articulated in Keith Mathison’s book. You can catch up with our (insanely long) discussion about it here. There have been a couple of follow-up posts, the most recent of which relates to the tu quoque objection, which, as far as I could tell, was the only substantive objection raised in the hundreds of comments on the original article.
peace in Christ,
TC
Do you believe in biblical inerrancy when it comes to science and history?
Eric, (re: #187)
I’m not exactly sure to whom your question is addressed, but the Church’s official, authoritative and irrevocable doctrine on this subject can be found in sections 20-21 of Providentissimus Deus (1893), and sections 16, 17, and especially 19-22 of Spiritus Paraclitus (1920).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Eric,
See also section 11 of Dei Verbum.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thanks Bryan,
I have excerpted a portion of Dei Verbum section 11:
Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.
That last part of the above paragraph seems important to me but maybe I do not understand it correctly. Thus, does biblical inerrancy apply to matters of science?
Among practicing Roman Catholic clergy and biblical scholars, will there be a range of opinion on this question?
Eric, (re: #190)
In Providentissimus Deus we read:
In Spiritus Paraclitus we read:
So when we read in Dei Verbum:
we know that the preposition “for the sake of salvation” does not limit inspiration (and inerrancy) to a part of Scripture, but clarifies the purpose of all the truth God included in Scripture. The hermemeutic of continuity requires that later teaching be interpreted and understood in light of what is already given. And that is why Dei Verbum must be interpreted and understand not as contradicting Providentissimus Deus and Spiritus Paraclitus, but as in continuity with them.
You asked:
Among clergy and scholars one will find a range of “opinion” on this and just about every question. But whenever someone deviates from the Church’s teaching, it is just that, opinion. This deviation is partly due to ignorance of the Church’s teaching, and partly to dissent and the influence of modernism. But the complete inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture is what the Church has always believed and taught, and the Church can never revoke or reject this doctrine; she does not have the authority to do so.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
I don’t see how your #191 answers this question from Eric M’s Question in #190
“Thus, does biblical inerrancy apply to matters of science?”
I understand (and agree with your response) in that all of sacred scripture is inerrant, but is it inerrant on every subject we apply it to, or is inerrancy limited in anyway to the scope of the matters scripture addresses?
In short, does the proper understanding of inerrancy for a Catholic require literal scientific understanding of the first Chapter of Genesis?
Paul, (re: #192)
I don’t know what the question “Does biblical inerrancy apply to matters of science” means, because I don’t know what it means to “apply” biblical inerrancy to a matter of science. Since every part of Scripture is divinely inspired, every part of Scripture is inerrant. No part of Scripture is in error. I’m not sure how to make it any clearer. If the question is “What about those verses that have to do with science?” I don’t understand why “no part of Scripture is in error” hasn’t already answered the question. It is not as though the Church statements I’ve already quoted made some kind of unspoken reservation about verses related to science. In fact, they explicitly disallowed this. Divine inspiration cannot be restricted only to some part of Sacred Scripture, and therefore inerrancy cannot be restricted only to some part of Sacred Scripture, such as the “non-science parts.”
Now, if you’re asking “Does the proper understanding of inerrancy for a Catholic require ‘literal’ scientific understanding of the first Chapter of Genesis?” that’s an entirely different question. Inerrancy is about error. This question you are asking here is about interpretation of Scripture, i.e. how those inerrant passages are to be rightly interpreted. We must not confuse the two questions: inerrancy, and interpretation. I suppose you are asking whether the Catholic Church requires that the ‘days’ of Gen 1 must be interpreted as twenty-four periods. And the answer is ‘no.’ They don’t have to be interpreted that way. (See, for example, St. Augustine’s “On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis.”) But that’s an interpretive question, not a question about their veracity. See paragraphs 35-43 of Humani Generis.
I should point out that questions about Scriptural inerrancy and interpretation are straying from the topic of this post, which is Dr. Anders’ post. Let’s try to keep the comments on topic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thinking of this article, and another, similar one, elsewhere, by Dr. Anders, I’m struck, in a very helpful way, by how one can relate one’s “conversion story” differently (not in a contradictory way but with different nuances), at different times, perhaps for different audiences.
What has brought up this realization for me is that I’ve been reading through another “version” of Dr. Anders’ account of his journey, away from Reformed Protestantism and to the Catholic Church, as published in the newsletter of the Coming Home Network. Dr. Anders mentioned it earlier, but for anyone who missed it, here is the link again: https://www.chnetwork.org/newsletters/may10.pdf
Personally, as a “revert” to the Church, I am comforted, in a way, by how Dr. Anders relates some of the *honest pain* of his journey in the above account. Moving from Reformed Christianity to the Catholic Church is *not* easy. It is very much worth the struggle, pain, and loss, but all potential converts and reverts to the Church should be clear-eyed about these realities.
I attended my first Mass in more than a decade today, and I cannot begin to explain what it meant, and what it was like, to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. I will only say that it was an incredibly intimate moment in my life and walk with God. The facts of being reconciled to His Church, and of receiving Him in the Eucharist, make up for the past several months of (sometimes) turmoil and loss.
The loss is real though. After Mass, I spent today and tonight, July 4th, at home alone (I’m not married or in a relationship), no friends called me to do anything, and I doubt that would have been the case if I were still a Protestant. Other than the person who drove me to and from Mass (for whom I am *very, very* grateful), and the priest, with whom I briefly interacted after Mass, almost no one attempted to talk to me. Perhaps it was just more noticeable on a day when I was fairly sure that I was going to be alone, while most of my old friends likely would not be– it’s hard to say. However, I can say that the fellowship, such as it was, after the Mass, was very, very different than the incredible welcome that I got in the fellowship time after the first service I attended at my old Reformed Baptist church. Reformed Protestant converts to the Catholic Church, and reverts to the Church, after having been away for a long time, may (I won’t say “will,” obviously, because this is my personal experience) have to adjust to some painful differences in their initial Catholic life from the church culture to which they had become accustomed. I write these things, however, not at all to *discourage* or *dissuade* Protestants from reconciling themselves to the Church.
As I wrote above, the gains are *more than worth* the losses. Greatest of all those gains, I am back in, and reconciled to, Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which He Himself founded, and which had endured for 2,000 years. As a Catholic Christian, I received the Lord Himself today, really, truly, substantially,– His body, blood, soul, and divinity,– in a way that I simply could not have received Him in any Protestant community. I was stirred by a quiet and a reverence in worship that I had not experienced in years, and more so, by the fact that I was participating in a liturgy which predates the Reformation by over a thousand years. I was blessed and encouraged to hear a pointed and fiery homily from an 80-year-old priest who did not hesitate to speak of *all* abortions as homicides (no exceptions whatsoever) and who presented Jesus Christ as the answer to sinful abominations.
I am truly blessed to be Home, in the Catholic Church, and in a faithful parish, which teaches the truths of the Catholic faith. While I was alone for much of the day and evening, on a day when most Americans are together, and while I recognize that this is one of the prices that I paid, today, for returning to the Catholic Church, truthfully, if I could go back, I would not change my mind– other than to return to the Church *much sooner* than I did! :-) Blessings to everyone here!
Important correction, and an important point to make, along with it (God’s providence be quite wonderful, even in our typing mistakes!)– I meant to write, above, “Christ’s One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, which *has* (not “had) endured for 2,000 years!” One letter can make all the difference in the world, my friends! The gates of Hell have not prevailed, and shall never prevail, against the Church that Christ Himself founded. (!)
Christopher Lake – I just want to echo your sentiments. I was not brought up a Christian at all – became an evangelical Christian at age 27, a Calvinist (not Reformed Baptist – in the magisterial Reformed tradition) a few years later – and began a terrifying two-year journey towards Rome on my 51st birthday. My reception – with my wife’s and our children, although each of those was more or less independent – will have been fifteen years ago this coming Christmas Eve.
It was, indeed, a terrifying journey, and I should add, as well, that the first three or four years of our being Catholics was often very stormy – well, really, five years – as our own lives began more and more to conform to what God intended.
But – my word, I can hardly express the difference. I have come out of a dark and narrow place into the most glorious light and space. Thank God for His mercies!
jj
My Journey href=”https://susanj.atnz.net/Jensen_Family/jj_cath/jj_cath_index.html”
John,
Thank you so much for the comment, and for the link to your story, my brother in Christ. If I ever get a chance to travel to your corner of the world, we’ll have to meet up for coffee (or whatever your favorite beverage of choice happens to be)! :-)
Like you, I was not raised with a truly Christian background. My spiritual trajectory is, briefly, as follows:
1. Nominal, largely cultural, “Christian” childhood (Christian in name only though).
2. Over a decade of skepticism/agnosticism.
3. Brief journey to/embracing of the Catholic Church in college (and alas, heretical RCIA experience).
4. Many more years of outright atheism/skepticism.
5. Several years as a convinced, studied Reformed Protestant.
6. Now, this year, returning to the Catholic Church, from serious, careful studying of her own documents (Bible, Church Fathers, and other historical/Church documents).
7. Death (hopefully a good while away though!). :-)
As a Catholic, I should have added three more to the above seven (*not* to be presumptuous about my future):
8. Purgatory, I pray, through my perseverance in Christ, through faith and works, in this life.
9. Again, I pray, in hope, and the confidence of faith and perseverance, becoming a part of that great cloud of witnesses in Heaven!
10. Receiving my glorified body at Christ’s return, and knowing what it is like to not have to use a wheelchair or painful crutches! :-) Okay, I think that’s it!
@Christopher Lake #194 – Truely confessional Reformed churches do teach that they recieve the true body and blood of the Lord in the sacrement. The memorial view of the Lord’s Supper is a Baptist thing and not the teaching of Reformed and Presbyterian confessions. They differ in that they believe that the body and blood are recieved spiritually by faith. They differ from Lutherans in that we believe in Real Presence, that is the Body and Blood of the Lord are physically present but the bread and wine do not change. I will also add that the protestant objection to the Eucharist is not Transubstantiation. pre-Reformation reformer John Hus taught transubstantiation, but we reject the idea that it is a resacrificing of Christ per Hebrews 10:10-23.
Jason,
I was a Reformed Baptist, but that identity did not comprise my entire world of study as a soteriologically Reformed Christian. I know what the confessional Reformed churches teach on the subject of the Lord’s Supper. The question is, would any of the Reformed actually fall down in worship before their sacrament of bread and wine, because they believe that it has actually *become Jesus* through consecration?
If they would do so, then they have ceased to be historically Reformed. If they would not do so, then by their refusal, they prove that they do not truly believe they are receiving *Jesus Himself, body, blood, soul, and divinity*, in their Lord’s Supper, as Catholic Christians believe that we are in the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist– and as Christians of the same Catholic, worldwide Church believed in 106 A.D., according to Ignatius of Antioch.
Jason,
The Catholic Church does not teach that the Eucharist a “re-sacrificing” of of Jesus Christ on the cross for sinners. The sacrifice on the cross happened once and only once, and it was for sinners, for all time. The Eucharist is a “re-presentation” of that one same sacrifice, not a “re-sacrificing” of Christ.
Sorry for the typos in that last comment, Jason… it’s very early here. :-)
@Christopher Lake- I don’t think less of people for typos. I can’t spell and frequenlty refer to a dictionary so Why should I be critical of typos on a blog. In response to #201 Please explain the following in light of Hebrews chapter ten which says all sacrifices are done away with and the fact that our Lord Jesus said himself on the cross “It is finished”:
1055 By virtue of the “communion of saints,” the Church commends the dead to God’s mercy and offers her prayers, especially the holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, on their behalf.
1365 Because it is the memorial of Christ’s Passover, the Eucharist is also a sacrifice. The sacrificial character of the Eucharist is manifested in the very words of institution: “This is my body which is given for you” and “This cup which is poured out for you is the New Covenant in my blood.” In the Eucharist Christ gives us the very body which he gave up for us on the cross, the very blood which he “poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
1068 It is this mystery of Christ that the Church proclaims and celebrates in her liturgy so that the faithful may live from it and bear witness to it in the world:
For it is in the liturgy, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, that “the work of our redemption is accomplished,” and it is through the liturgy especially that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church.
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”
“If any one saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and of thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or, that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities; let him be anathema.” (Trent: On the Sacrifice of the Mass: Canon 3);
“As sacrifice, the Eucharist is also offered in reparation for the sins of the living and the dead,” (CCC, 1414).
“The Church intends the Mass to be regarded as a ‘true and proper sacrifice'”, (The Catholic Encyclopedia, topic: “Sacrifice of the Mass”).
One more question, Bryan: Do you believe that “the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis”?
Eric, (re: #204)
The question of evolution would take us completely off-topic for this post. So, this is all I’ll say about it here. On evolution as a scientific theory regarding the divergence of species from common ancestors (not to be confused with [naturalistic] evolution as a philosophical theory), the Church has taken no formal position. (Of course naturalistic evolution is incompatible with the Catholic faith.) But, there are non-negotiables even in relation to the scientific theory of evolution. It is not permitted for a Catholic to deny the existence of the first human couple, Adam and Eve, from whom all humans come, as I already pointed out in the Humani Generis reference. Nor can a Catholic believe that human beings do not have immaterial souls that are immediately created by God. On the question whether God made Adam from pre-existing hominids, we must believe that God immediately (i.e. not by mediation of other creatures) ‘blew’ into man’s nostrils the breath of life, and gave him an immaterial subsistent soul. The other animals have souls, but not subsistent souls, i.e. souls that continue to exist after death. So the creation of man (and every human being) had to involve an immediate and miraculous act, the ex nihilo creation of a human soul. The human soul cannot be the product of evolution, because a subsistent soul cannot come from what it not subsistent. This remains the teaching of the Catholic Church relevant to this subject.
In his first homily as pope, Pope Benedict said the following:
If you are looking to study this subject more deeply, then in addition to the paragraphs I referred to in Humani Generis, see also Creation and Evolution: A Conference with Pope Benedict in Castel Gandolfo, and Cardinal Schoeborn’s Chance or Purpose? Creation, Evolution and a Rational Faith, and Pope Benedict’s In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (written before he was pope).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason,
Thanks for being understanding about my typos. :-) To answer your question about Hebrews, chapter 10, and its relationship to the Eucharist, that chapter is contrasting the repeated animal sacrifices of Jewish priests (who did not accept Jesus as the Messiah) with the once-for-all-time (as I wrote above in #201) sacrifice of Jesus on the cross. As is shown by the excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you provided, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of the cross and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice, not a “re-sacrificing” of Christ:
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”
One way that the Catechism also states the above is to explain that the sacrifice of the Eucharist *is* the sacrifice on the cross, “re-presented” in time. Jesus is not sacrificed again, in the sense that He is not re-crucified on the cross, but His one sacrifice is “presented” to us again, through the Mass. Given that it *is* the same sacrifice that was offered upon the cross, it must be truly propitiatory, because the cross’s sacrifice was/is truly propitiatory.
When Jesus said, “It is finished,” he was referring to that one sacrifice, His work for us, which would never have to be done again. He would not have to be “re-sacrificed,” as His sacrifice was/is sufficient for the sins of the world. This is still the case today– which is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches. Again, the Mass is not a re-sacrificing but a re-presenting of the one, sufficient sacrifice of Jesus.
As for Christ’s one sacrifice being “re-presented” at Mass for the sins of the dead, this goes to the teaching of purgatory, which is found in 2 Maccabees. This book is one among others which were included in *all* Christian Bibles, until Martin Luther, the “founder” of the 16th-century Reformation, decided not to accept these books in his version of the Bible, which was later accepted by all Protestants. The following Lutheran website openly admits these historical facts: https://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/New-or-Returning-to-Church/Dig-Deeper/The-Apocrypha.aspx
Jason, (re: #203)
You wrote:
Christ’s sacrifice is finished with respect to suffering and death, but it is not finished with respect to our participation in His sacrifice. He has suffered and died once and for all on the cross two-thousand years ago: “Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him.” (Rom 6:9) But Christ’s sacrifice is perfect precisely because in another sense it is never done away, but is eternal because it is the sacrifice of the One who is Timeless Eternity (“I Am”). By the ministerial priesthood which He bestowed upon His Apostles and their successors, we are granted participation even now in that one, perfect sacrifice. Christ is not re-sacrificed in the mass; in the mass we are miraculously granted a present participation in that once-and-for-all-time sacrifice of the cross, presented to us in an unbloody manner. In this way we presently participate in His sacrifice on the cross, and we partake of His body, blood, soul and divinity. Because the mass is our participation in the very same sacrifice of Christ on the Christ, it is not an additional sacrifice or a re-sacrificing of Christ.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Let’s see, I follow Calvin, I follow the Pope, I follow Luther… is this a joke or what… I follow Christ.
1st John 3:4-9, if you say you sin you don’t know Christ and never have, if you are in Christ, you cannot sin… Same word for sin as 1 John 1:9.
Gal 2:20…. There is a difference between who you are and what you do. You can choose to live by Faith in Christ, or faith in some Christian leader like Luther/Calvin/or the Pope. I choose to by faith in Christ.
I will never understand why Christ being tortured and dying on the cross wasn’t enough. If not saved and perfected 2000 years ago, I guess the work of Satan is what is needed to help finish what Christ couldn’t accomplish.
Hundreds of verses making it clear, I am one with Christ right now, and I am glad to be one with Christ, instead of being one with some priest, or one with the pope. Seems no one here understands the difference between “living in Christ” compared to “being in Christ”. I guess you all go in and out of “being in Christ”, right? Or, could it possibly be one with Christ means what is says, your new nature is one with Christ, and it’s who you are, now and eternally… you can choose to live out who you are, one with Chist, or live after the flesh on your own, thinking you can follow the pope, instead of living by faith in the truth, you are one with Christ, not one with pope…
Alan (#208),
As a former Reformed Baptist who recently returned to the Catholic Church, I am not “one with the Pope” or “following the Pope,” rather than following Christ. Christ founded one Church. As the Scriptures say, there is one Lord, one faith, and one baptism. Protestants disagree among themselves about the faith and about baptism, to the point of splitting into thousands of churches. This does not represent not the oneness in Christ that God wants His followers to have.
In coming home to the Catholic Church, I am submitting to and following Christ, who founded one Church for His people. Have you read, and interacted with, the articles here? You might start with this one: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/06/christ-founded-a-visible-church/
In #209, I meant to type, obviously, “This does not represent the oneness in Christ that God wants His followers to have.”
Alan
I can’t imagine how I could be anymore One with Christ that receiving His Body and Blood fully and really present in Holy Communion while surrendering all that I am to union with him and monifesting that by being visibly united with His Body on Earth the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Peace Brother
@Christopher Lake in response to 206. I would like to point out protestant Bibles contained the Apocrypha up through the 17th century. Also, I would ask, when were the apocryphal books canonized?
@Christopher Lake also concerning 206- The ELCA aren’t really Lutherans. They just use the name.
@Christopher Lake- concerning #209, are you aware that in the early church there were significant disagreements about various things such as the proper use of images, priestly celibacy (largely unpopular and causing a riot in Mainz ,forgive me if I have the wrong city but I am nearly certain it was Mainz, when it came on the scene, I would also add that Paul calls prohibition of marriage a docrtine of demons) whether or not Mary had any children after Jesus, etc.
As far as division among protestants, not all non-Catholic churches are functionally protestant according to surveys done in the last 20 years.
Jason,
If I may just interject for a bit, Paul was speaking of the Gnostics and their variances of why be celibate. He himself as a celibate would be contradictory if he solely was against the celibate lifestyle.
Jason,
The Apostle Paul’s reference that you allude to is, as Drew pointed out, about the gnostic sects which did teach against marriage and having children etc…
That being said, the Catholic Church teaches that Marriage is a Sacrament, and as a Sacrament, it is a communication of the life of Christ. There are only a couple of Churches that I know of, the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church, that teach the sacred dignity of Marriage.
Jason,
As to your ELCA comment, on what basis do you make the judgement that the ELCA is not really Lutheran? I am not defending them, just wanting to know the criteria that you use to make this judgement.
@Drew H. I never said Paul was against celibacy but in 1 Corinthians 9 Paul clearly asserts his right to take a believing wife if he so desired. Celibacy is a gift that is not given to all. Also, Bishop and clergy were married in the early churh as per 1st Tim 3 and Titus 1 and the following:
Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXV.
“Bishops and clergy shall not set their children free until their morals are established.” -Synod of Hippo a.d. 393
@Tom at 217- They don’t believe the Bible and they don’t hold to the Lutheran Confessions. That simple. Sure they give it lip service, but in reality they just believe whatever they want. There may be a few faithfull among them but if I were them I would go to almost any other Lutheran Church body.
Jason,
The article on “The Canon Question” addresses your questions about the canonization of the deuterocanonical books.
Jason (re: #218),
See comment #880 in the Solo Scriptura thread.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason,
In the hours since I last replied to you, it looks as though other contributors here have answered most (not all) of your questions to me, or pointed you to resources that could answer them. (Thank you for the help, all!) I will now do what I can to help answer your other questions/issues.
On your #213 comment, I am aware that the ECLA is one of the more “liberal” Lutheran denominations– but how does that bear at all on their statements regarding the historical Christian status of the apocrypha? Historical facts are historical facts, and as their site states, it is the case that until the 16-century Protestant Reformation, all Christian Bibles included the so-called “apocrypha.” While it is true that for a certain span of time, Protestant Bibles included these books, they were never treated by Protestant churches as inspired and infallible. However, the books *were* treated as such by the Catholic Church, before the Reformation, and still are treated so today. In 382 A.D. the books were declared by Pope Damasus to be part of the canon of inspired books which were to read in parishes as part of the liturgy– which was declaring them canonical. The same decision was publicly reaffirmed at the Council of Trent, in response to Martin Luther’s challenging of the books’ status.
On your #214 comment, Jason, could you please provide some sort of historical documentation for your statements about the debates over images and the perpetual virginity of Mary in the early Church? That would help me in this discussion. Thank you in advance.
Jason,
Also, could you please clarify what this statement means, in #214:
“As far as division among protestants, not all non-Catholic churches are functionally protestant according to surveys done in the last 20 years.”
I’m not understanding you here. I want to understand, but I’m not seeing your meaning. Are you referring to the Eastern Orthodox churches? As far as I know, all non-Catholic and non-Orthodox communities hold to some form(s) of Protestant theology and ecclesiology.
In response to 222 Chris, “More Liberal”? How about apostate.”
1. Jesus quoted only from the accepted Jewish Canon. 2. Not a few early church fathers rejected the Apocrypha as scripture including Athanasius, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem. The apocrypha were only affirmed at local councils not universal ones until Trent so is does not follow that they were universally accepted. Also, we know from the Council of Chalcedon that the primacy of the Bishop of Rome was not universally recognized though the Bishop you mention tried to claim such. ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON XXVIII.”The bishop of New Rome (Constantinople) shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople.”
Tobit 12:9 “For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting.” vs. Hebrews 1:3 (KJV) “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:”
Do alms (or purgatory) purge sins or does the blood of Christ purge sins?
As to what I said in 214: Just because a church (or person) describes itself as “evangelical” does not mean that they are functionally. Surveys taken at evangelical on students views of doctrine show that most are not doctrinally “evangelical” but any other number of things including Mormon. I have heard Rick Warren called “that Baptist Catholic”. Pelagianism and enthusiasm is rampant in many so called “protestant” or “evangelical” churches and thus they aren’t really evangelical or protestant in the true sense. They do not really believe and teach salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, by Christ’s work alone and on His merits for His sake alone. They basically tell you you gotta meet God half way and work the rest out on your own is the current Zeitgeist. Mysticism is also a blight of “evangelicalism” at large. Basically, greater evangelicalism has gone away from the Reformation toward the medieval. Lets not forget the apostate emergent movement in which many deny the doctrine of Hell.
Jason,
Some of these topics have been addressed in other posts. There is a post that goes into the canon question. You would do well to read it and respond to the arguments made there. Be that as it may, you statement:
That is just false. For example Mark 7:6-8 quotes a version of Isaiah only found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.
Jason,
Without checking out your reference to the Bishop who declared the priests not married; it is important to note that Paul took vows more serious than that. In 1 Timothy 5:11-12 when he says that the widows will condemn themselves. I am not a competent exegete, but I do believe that the same word that I translate “condemn” is the same used in 1 Corinthians with someone who desecrates the Lord’s Supper.
Jason,
As Randy mentioned, there is an article dealing with the very issue of the canon which you have discussed.
The Canon Question
Jason (re:#224),
I hope that you are not only reading my replies but the replies of other people to you here, because, as I wrote earlier, they are either answering many of the questions that you have asked me, or pointing you to helpful resources which can answer them.
As Randy mentioned in #225, your statement about Jesus and the “apocrypha” is incorrect.
Some of the Church Fathers (not many, of which I am aware) were slow to accept the “apocrypha”; Jerome was one of them. However, as far as I know, those Fathers did finally accept the books. Jerome was persuaded by Augustine, to an extent, and ultimately, Jerome fully accepted the Pope’s declaration of the books’ canonical status. The same is, I believe, true of the other Fathers. For any Father to have rebelled against the Pope’s authoritative declaration on the canon would have been seen as a very grave act of sin.
About the ECLA, I should have been more clear. I am a former Reformed Baptist, so when I say “liberal,” I basically mean “heretical.” However, that still has no bearing on the historical truth, found on the ECLA website, that until the Reformation, all Christian Bible included the “apocrypha”– and *not* in the merely supplementary way that Protestant Bibles included them for many years after the Reformation.
About purgatory, it is not “in competition with Christ,” so to speak, for the purging of sin. Similarly to faith and works, related to justification, Protestants see the equation as one of “either/or,” when the truly Biblical equation is “both/and.” Christ’s death on the cross *does* purge sin, but to say that it purges all past, present, and *future* sins, and moreover, in the sense of giving a perpetual “imputed righteousness” to the one who trusts in Christ, is to engage in eisegesis.
Saddleback Church is not “Catholic” in its theology or ecclesiology. To imply that Rick Warren is not truly a Protestant is quite strange. Notwithstanding the general Reformed dislike of his writing, his subtle soteriology in “The Purpose-Driven Life” is actually closer to Calvinism than Arminianism. I’m not saying that he *is* a Calvinist, but he is certainly no Pelagian. It seems that you are basically saying that if a Protestant is not strongly Reformed in his/her theology, that person is not truly a Protestant, but rather, a would-be Catholic (but then, the Catholic Church condemned Pelagianism as a heresy and is also not semi-Pelagian)!
Jason,
With special regard to #224, I find it peculiar that you are so confident in your pronouncements of who is or is not truly “Evangelical” and/or “Protestant.” Perhaps you can enlighten us (and the Evangelical Protestant world communities) as to how you have made such a determination. When I attended one of the largest Evangelical seminaries in the US, the definition of Evangelical was a subject of considerable confusion and debate not just among students, but in the published writings of faculty members.
You might say that true Evangelicals cannot hold heretical beliefs, but then you must deal with the problem that many others (well-educated, Biblically literate, very serious others) who consider themselves Evangelical would consider some of your beliefs and Biblical interpretations heretical. How do you know that yours are right and theirs are wrong? You could say that true Protestants must hold to the teachings of Luther or Calvin (which one, though?), but if I am right to assume that you do not hold to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as both of them did, then neither are you truly Protestant. If it is to subsequent Lutheran or Reformed confessions that you look, then again: which ones? Those communities and their writings certainly did not all agree.
Unless you hold faith in every teaching of Luther, then your claim that the ELCA is not truly Lutheran is without teeth. “Evangelical” is an umbrella term so wide as to be functionally useless (there are self-described Evanglical Orthodox and Evangelical Catholics–by what authority do you determine that they are not?). Can you prove that your opinions in these matters are anything more than just that – opinion?
Scott B:
How do you know that yours are right and theirs are wrong?
That about sums up the problem with any form of Protestantism. They’re left pretty much with an academic magisterium on the one hand and bosom-burning on the other. Put more simply: rationalism and enthusiasm. It’s sad to watch the oscillations and contradictions.
Best,
Mike
229- “How do you know that yours are right and theirs are wrong? You could say that true Protestants must hold to the teachings of Luther or Calvin (which one, though?), but if I am right to assume that you do not hold to the Perpetual Virginity of Mary as both of them did, then neither are you truly Protestant. If it is to subsequent Lutheran or Reformed confessions that you look, then again: which ones? Those communities and their writings certainly did not all agree.”
The Bible is always right. If you want to understand the Bible follow these three simple Rules. Context, context, and context. I have no problem with people who believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity but the text indicates otherwise but it is not essential for salvation. Many of my fellow Lutherans believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity however the earliest texts that support this view are from the second century and not the first. Some of them are Gnostic “Gospels” (which are not gospels because none of them contain the Gospel). Also, some church fathers such as Tertullian did not accept the doctrine.
You are right to say that Reformed and Lutherans do not agree on some points but there is also a lot of overlap but we all agree on what the Gospel is and we all believe it. Though I may find my Calvinist brothers in error I still count them brothers. After all, I was once a Calvinist too. I would also point out that in the early church there were disagreements and they went to the SCRIPTURES to hammer out the problem.
“Unless you hold faith in every teaching of Luther, then your claim that the ELCA is not truly Lutheran is without teeth. “Evangelical” is an umbrella term so wide as to be functionally useless (there are self-described Evanglical Orthodox and Evangelical Catholics–by what authority do you determine that they are not?). Can you prove that your opinions in these matters are anything more than just that – opinion?”
The last thing we want to do is assert our own opinions. What we must do is compare what they say in the name of God to the Word of God. If the ELCA says that homosexuality is not a sin and the Bible says the opposite then the Bible is right and the ELCA is wrong. If the ELCA preaches in Marxist categories of have and have not and the Bible speaks in terms of saved and not saved then the Bible is right and the ELCA is wrong. Furthermore if the ELCA denies the interpretation of the Bible laid out in the Formula of Concord they are not Lutherans. For instance, the ELCA’s stance on scripture, ordination of women, etc is not Lutheran. Any Pastor in any church should subscribe unconditionally to their confession and if they don’t they need to go some place where they can subsribe unconditionally.
https://cyberbrethren.com/2010/07/07/the-lutheran-confessions-are-not-just-lutheran/
If you want to know what Lutherans believe read this https://www.bookofconcord.org/
Now, I would like to turn the question around on you. How do you know that you are interpretting the teachings of the church of Rome correctly? Or that that people interpretting it for you are doing it correctly? Please tell me what “and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”” in the following passage means. If you guys are so error free then why does it say that Muslims “adore” the same God as Christians when in reality they hate Him and are in outright rebellion against His Gospel?
CCC 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”
@226- not relevant to the issue at hand.
@228- Can you tell me why Roman Catholic Soteriology is not Semi-Pelagian?
@230 “That about sums up the problem with any form of Protestantism. They’re left pretty much with an academic magisterium on the one hand and bosom-burning on the other. Put more simply: rationalism and enthusiasm. It’s sad to watch the oscillations and contradictions.”
That is exactly what I think about Roman Catholocism (add sophistry) and Arminianism.
@225 “That is just false. For example Mark 7:6-8 quotes a version of Isaiah only found in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament.”
Randy, think for a minute. If the Septuagint is a greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures done by Jews then how did it such a passage get there if it did not exist in any Hebrew text? Just because we don’t have those autographs today does not mean they did not exist back then.
One general assumption that I keep seeing repeated is that Luther was the first to teach Justification by faith alone. This is patently false. I will here provide a list of others who came before him. Some of them were burned to death by the Papacy. 1. All of God’s prophets from creation on including 2. Jesus and his Apostles, 3. The early church fathers 4. Claudius Bishop of Turin (810 – 827) 5. John Wycliffe 6. John Hus 7. the Waldensians (although I would take issue with them on many many points of doctrine)
Guys, y’all are wearing me out. I will be gone for two weeks. I hope you all will start reading the scriptures in context, read some of the earliest church fathers whose letters are mostly scripture quotations. Christ died for all of your sins so don’t worry about that man made medieval doctrine called Purgatory. Jesus is the only one you can or should trust.
Jason:
I asked in 229:
How do you know that yours (Biblical interpretations and beliefs) are right and theirs are wrong?
You answered in 231:
The Bible is always right. If you want to understand the Bible follow these three simple Rules. Context, context, and context… The last thing we want to do is assert our own opinions. What we must do is compare what they say in the name of God to the Word of God.
You’re begging the question. All you’ve done is assert that your interpretation based on your assessment of the contextual considerations of different texts is the correct one, and that interpretations that disagree with your opinions of what context demands are in error. The whole question at hand is how one can know that they are not deceiving themselves (or being deceived from outside) about which interpretation is the truth. We all here agree that the Bible is always right. We disagree on its interpretation.
Which is why your arguments against the ELCA are still toothless. I have known a good many ELCA Lutherans who hold the Bible every bit as highly in esteem as you do, and who argue from and for it in favor of the things you object to (women’s ordination, homosexual commitments, and so on). While you and I might happen to agree that we do not believe these things are supported by the text itself, what it really boils down for you seems to be here:
Furthermore if the ELCA denies the interpretation of the Bible laid out in the Formula of Concord they are not Lutherans. For instance, the ELCA’s stance on scripture, ordination of women, etc is not Lutheran. Any Pastor in any church should subscribe unconditionally to their confession and if they don’t they need to go some place where they can subsribe unconditionally.
So it’s not actually the Bible alone that is your final authority. It appears that you are saying that the final authority for Lutherans is the extra-Biblical interpretative rules set down in the 16th century by a group of German Protestants. And if they don’t agree, they are to go somewhere they can “subscribe unconditionally,” which actually means that the individual convictions of the individual believer are actually their final authority. How can it not if nobody else has the authority to define anything as true and binding on a person that such person does not understand or agree with (say, the dual nature of Christ way back when)? If the right response of that person is to leave and find a group who agrees with him (for now)? Spin it however you want, that makes the individual’s convictions primary and anything else of secondary importance–Scripture, the Creed, Ecumenical Councils… all of it. The quotation in the opening paragraph of the blog you linked to regarding the Lutheran Confessions says it all: “I judge that all these agree with Holy Scripture and with the belief of the true and genuine catholic Church.” And if he hadn’t? He should head out and find (or found) a confession he did judge to be correct. It’s all about his opinion.
Now, to be honest, I really don’t care too much what any of the various Lutheran bodies teach, or what any of the various Reformed bodies teach. All of them are ultimately rooted in the idea that there can be no singular authoritative interpreter of Scripture, so each of them ultimately falls to the principle above, out of enthusiasm and/or academicism, “every one to his own way.” Go ahead and deny it: the reality that the Protestant world now, 500 years along, is split into tens of thousands of groups which disagree on the interpretation of Scripture, split at each point because somebody decided to go somewhere where they could “subscribe unconditionally,” even if that meant making their own new church in the grand tradition of the Protestant forefathers. So when you say “The Bible is always right,” you cannot avoid the fact that you are actually saying “the interpretation of the Bible which I judge to be correct is always right.” Nice little papacy you’ve got going, there.
Finally, with regard to your final two paragraphs: I can know whether I am understanding the teachings of the Catholic Church correctly by asking. Unlike Lutherans/Reformed/Baptists/Methodists/Etc., the Catholic Church has a continuing and identifiable living teaching presence who can respond to questions and challenges. For the Protestant, the same questions exist, but there is nobody who can authoritatively answer them, so they remain always open-ended matters of individual interpretations of Scripture. For the Catholic, one can ask and continue asking for clarification. You cannot say to your Bible, “Am I understanding correctly if I say X?” I can say to my priest or bishop, “Am I understanding correctly if I say X?” and he can respond actively. We can have a conversation wherein we can identify things I might be missing, and clarify things that are confusing. And sometimes my priest might be wrong, but I can compare what he says with what the bishops and popes have said, and continue asking questions where there appear to be differences. The Church continues to teach, lead, and shepherd, and is protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Your problem with the Catechism’s teaching about Muslims is sad. You say that “in reality” Muslims “hate Him and are in outright rebellion against His Gospel,” but how can you possibly know the inner motivations of millions of people? They are in theological error, yes, we are agreed on that, but even if Muslims have misunderstood the Triune God and the work and significance of Jesus Christ, they are seeking to follow God no less that you or I am. Okay, they have a lot of things wrong, but so do the ELCA and Reformed according to you. Do they also, perhaps along with the Jews, earn your ire? Muslims, Jews, and Christians all explicitly seek to follow and worship the God of Abraham. Many people will get it wrong, and that is a serious thing that deserves our prayerful and compassionate response, but you are looking on the outward appearance (incorrect doctrines), while God is looking on the heart (a desire for Him).
@233- From your viewpoint we can’t know what any text means then. From your position if the RCC says that the Bible says there are aliens and you have to believe that to be saved then you have to believe that in spite of anything the text says.
“Which is why your arguments against the ELCA are still toothless. I have known a good many ELCA Lutherans who hold the Bible every bit as highly in esteem as you do, and who argue from and for it in favor of the things you object to (women’s ordination, homosexual commitments, and so on). While you and I might happen to agree that we do not believe these things are supported by the text itself, what it really boils down for you seems to be here:”
That’s just silly, anyone who could read on a 8th grade level could read through the Bible and conclude that the ELCA is in outright rebellion against God. Sure there is the “Lutheran Core” but even they are in favor of things that scripture clearly forbids such as ordination of women. The ELCA only gives lip service to Bible.
“So it’s not actually the Bible alone that is your final authority.”
No, the Bible is THE FINAL AUTHORITY, the confessions, councils and creeds are only authoritative in that they agree with scripture. If you read early church fathers you will find they constantly appeal to Scripture.
“Now, to be honest, I really don’t care too much what…” Which is why you don’t get it and keep throwing straw men and red herrings at me.
“which actually means that the individual convictions of the individual believer are actually their final authority.” -Actually, it means they’ve been defrocked.
“Your problem with the Catechism’s teaching about Muslims is sad. You say that “in reality” Muslims “hate Him and are in outright rebellion against His Gospel,” but how can you possibly know the inner motivations of millions of people? ”
Uhhhh? God’s word! Duh!
“they are seeking to follow God no less that you or I am.”
No they are not and you have proven that you are a semi-pelagian heretic and you need to repent.
“Muslims, Jews, and Christians all explicitly seek to follow and worship the God of Abraham.”
If you do not trust in Jesus Christ alone for you salvation then you do not worship the God of Abraham. Jesus Christ is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Jesus Christ is the God who destroyed Sodom and Gemmorah. Jesus Christ is the God who chooses and saves His people.
“but you are looking on the outward appearance (incorrect doctrines), ”
No I am looking at the WORD OF CHRIST.
“while God is looking on the heart (a desire for Him).”
Further proof that you are a Pelagian heretic. Man does not have the power to seek God there is none that seeks Him. He seeks us! He comes to us in our baptism, in HIS word, in the sacrement of the alter. We do not seek God because we are born dead in tresspasses and sins and the Word of God (preached, read, and administered in the sacrements (there are only two by the way, your extras are man-made). God judging the heart is not good news, Christ dying for our sins is good news. You are trying to be saved by the Law which according to Paul in Gelatians there is no law that can save.
Gelatians 3:21-22 (ESV) “Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For(AN) if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22But the Scripture(AO) imprisoned everything under sin, so that(AP) the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given(AQ) to those who believe.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+3&version=ESV
Anything that you do is Law, not Gospel. The Gospel is what Christ has done for you. Repent and believe the Gospel.
But Jason – the point is that if you say the Bible says A and I say it says B, and we find we cannot agree – and we both think the issue in question is an essential one – who decides between us? It seems to me – as an ex-Calvinist, now-Catholic – that we have no choice but either to sacrifice unity or integrity.
jj
Jason,
How are you certain that you know what the passages in Galatians mean when they refer to “works of the law”? The fact is, brother, you are not simply reading the “clear teaching of the Bible.” You are interpreting the Bible *through the Lutheran theological and philosophical paradigm*, which brings you to certain conclusions about what passages mean. We all interpret the Bible through a paradigm, and we all have to be honest about that fact.
You keep telling us to look at context when it comes to Scripture. It is precisely because Luther *did not* carefully look at the context of Galatians that he misunderstood the passages about “the law.” He took “the law” to mean *any works* at all– meaning that, none of them can contribute to our justification before God. However, Luther was not looking at the *context* of these passages, which is that Jewish Christians were attempting to require Gentile Christians to be *circumcised*. This is primarily what is meant in Galatians by the statements that works of the law do not bring justification.
If one looks at the surrounding context, the references are to circumcision and other rituals of the Mosaic law, not to any and all works, peri0d. This does *not* mean that works, in and of themselves, justify though. They must be coupled with, and inspired by, the faith that trusts in God alone. Faith without works is dead, and by implication, works also need faith. Protestants misinterpret the situation being one of “Christians are justified by faith alone, while Catholics are trying to justify themselves before God by their works.”
In actuality, the Catholic teaching is the Biblical teaching. It’s not either faith or works, related to justification. It’s both/and. Faith alone does *not* justify man before God. Without works, it is *dead*. As a former Protestant, I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water. It is a case of eisegesis in the service of holding together a Protestant paradigm.
This is just insulting. I know many people who support female ordination. They are not incapable of reading. They are not in rebellion against God. A few of them are pastors in my family. It is possible they are mistaken. It is also possible you are. But for you to declare them to be evil just because they disagree with you is arrogant and uncharitable. I understand that the only alternative is to admit your system does not work. But what you are doing is not working very well either. It is the thinking that has led to many wars but it has not led to unity and not led to truth.
Jason (234):
I appear to have struck a nerve here, which was not my intent. I apologize for any unintentional offense. Nevertheless, you have not dealt with any of my arguments and you continue to miss the point. The only thing you have to vouch for your interpretation of Scripture is that it makes sense to you (hence the 8th-grade reading level comment, even though smarter men than you and me disagree with us both. Are they all right? All wrong?).
John and Christopher above have answered this assumption well enough, there’s no need for me to add to what they’ve said. I’m more interested in reading your honest response to what I actually wrote. If they are red herrings and straw men, show me what and why. I grew up Baptist and spent years as a Reformed Christian before coming to the Catholic Church as a student in an Evangelical seminary. I know the arguments, because I’ve made them. They all fall to the same weakness, because they all lack any authority to back themselves up. Again, you say it is the Bible alone, but are ignoring the inconvenient fact that the Bible must be interpreted, and that you are the one who is deciding which interpretation out of many is correct. You are pretending as if there is only one meaning possible in Scripture and that it is obvious, but the facts on the ground utterly contradict that idea.
I’m willing to be shown that I’m wrong, but you’ve given me nothing but dismissiveness and unexamined assumptions so far.
In actuality, the Catholic teaching is the Biblical teaching. It’s not either faith or works, related to justification. It’s both/and. Faith alone does *not* justify man before God. Without works, it is *dead*. As a former Protestant, I know the explanati0n, “Well, James is talking about a different kind of justification than Paul.” The explanation does not hold water. It is a case of eisegesis in the service of holding together a Protestant paradigm.
Actually, the Protestant explanation I understood, when I was a Calvinist, was that James is saying – what could be perfectly plausible, I think – that living faith will produce works, and that those works are the proof that his faith is living. Of course what James actually says is that a man is not justified by faith alone. And Paul does not say – Luther to the contrary – that a man is saved by faith alone, only that he is saved by faith. I personally consider the ‘faith alone’ vs ‘faith plus works’ to be a dispute about words. Both sides agree that to say “I have faith” but not have works means one is not justified.
But there are basic disagreements between Protestants and Catholics – never mind that, there are basic disagreements amongst Protestants. My question to Jason seems to me to stand still – who decides what the Bible teaches?
jj
Jason,
Please read our posting guidelines. Your last comment contained several violations including an ad hominem attack.
All: Thanks for helping us keep the discussion as charitable as possible!
To assert the necessity of the Catholic magisterium in establishing authoritative interpretations of divine revelation is not to say that no text can be understood.
Materially speaking, different kinds of texts are more or less suited to application in a wide range of contexts. If I want to know how to use my iPod, I can look at this little booklet called a “manual” that is very clearly intended to tell me everything I need to know about using my iPod. If I want to know everything I need to know about what it means to be a Christian (what I should believe and what I should do), it is not self-evident that I should look to a collection of narratives and letters written to particular communities to address particular problems. Speaking of what 8th graders can or can’t accomplish, any 8th grader should be able to look at the bible and realize that it’s not an instruction manual. This is an obvious category confusion that could only happen to someone who is simply making the assumption, for whatever theological or polemical reason, that it must be so. We don’t find, and shouldn’t expect to find, explicit treatments of baptism in a letter that Paul writes to a congregation to tell some dude to stop sleeping with his stepmom in which he only mentions baptism in passing. The demand that Protestants make of scripture is unnatural and explains why so many of them come to such different conclusions. The data is not clearly laid out like they need it to be, and so they can’t help but come to mutually exclusive, but in many cases equally rational, positions. Jason acts as though his hermeneutic and the conclusions which he draws are self-evident, yet even Peter says that many of Paul’s writings are confusing and difficult to understand. It’s particularly difficult to understand the biblical texts when they are wrenched out of their ecclesial context, and that is what has happened in Protestantism. Because the bible has no ecclesial context for the Protestant, the only context left is the words on the page. Yet we must remember that the ecclesial community is prior to the text, and so the people who wrote the New Testament were not writing it in order to tell everyone how to establish their communities. The communities had already been established on the basis of apostolic (oral) teaching and sacramental leadership, and there are therefore many things that the authors and readers of the New Testament would have simply taken for granted. It is this ecclesial context for which the Protestant hermeneutic is starved. For a Protestant, Jesus’ giving of John to Mary and Mary to John can be little more than an interesting fact of history that John decided (for whatever reason) to make us privy to. At best, we get to see what a nice son Jesus is. But it makes perfect sense to the Fathers and to Catholics and Orthodox for the subsequent centuries that the New Testament has a Mariology. It was perfectly natural for Origen to say, “we must lay our head on Jesus’ breast and take Mary as our mother” because the Church new this to be the case even outside of written revelation.
John (#239),
You’re right about the Calvinist explanation being that works “prove” that faith is living– at least, this is what I *think* that *most* Calvinists believe. However, therein lies another problem. Calvinists can’t seem to agree among *themselves*, as to the best way to think about this issue and to speak about it– whether to each other, or to themselves, particularly when it comes to the subject of assurance of salvation.
From what I have read, most of the Puritans placed a very, very strong emphasis on the visible, clearly identifiable role of works in one’s Christian life. Reading at least some of their books, sermons, etc., one could easily come away with the message, “If you are not bearing *obvious, visible* signs of *progress* in holiness at *all* times in your Christian life, then you either might not be a Christian, or you are likely not one.”
However, other Calvinist authors will say, basically, “Yes, works are important. They are one sign of a living faith. However, don’t look so much at your works, because their half-heartedness may drive you to despair. Look to Christ for assurance of your salvation– for the assurance that you are, in fact, justified before God by virtue of your faith in Christ.”
To a Calvinist, I know that the difference between the above two “Calvinist positions” on works will likely seem very small, compared to the difference(s) between the basic Protestant and Catholic positions on works. However, in daily, lived-out practice, these two Calvinist views can make a radical difference in one’s Christian life. I “lived” each one of them, at various times, as a Calvinist, and in my experience, the first can easily lead to despair, and the second can easily lead to antinomianism.
Ironically, while many Protestants see Catholic teaching on faith and works as being “law-based, legalistic,” I have found it to be much more Biblically accurate, balanced, and healthy, then either of the two aforementioned Calvinist positions. There is also the Lutheran position, which, from my understanding, is much closer to the second Calvinist position than the first. Again, Protestants disagree among themselves as to how to best think about the role of works in the Christian life. They will all *say* that works do not contribute to justification, which is by faith alone– but how justification is “lived out,” through faith and works, can look radically different from one section of Protestantism to another.
As to your view that the “faith alone” and “faith plus works” dispute is one of words, I would mostly agree. Of course, Protestants don’t see it that way, possibly due, largely, to the Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins, with the former actually killing God’s grace in the life of the soul, and the latter being harmful but not deadly to grace in the soul. This distinction is unacceptable to Protestants, and it may be a great part of their dispute with Catholics over “faith alone” vs. “faith plus works.”
235- Doctrine divides darkness form light.
@236- That is just you interpreting the text according to the way you’ve been told. Instead of looking at the plain meaning of the text you have to do a heresy two step so it come out the way you want it. Ephesians 2 will help you clear up the Roman twisting of James.
Ephesians 2:8-11 (King James Version)
8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9Not of works, lest any man should boast.
10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
11Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
Notice verse 10 how we are “created in Christ Jesus UNTO good works” and that is what James means when he says we are justified by faith and works. If you look at the context in James he says that works without faith are dead and faith without works is dead. Good works are a FRUIT of faith. Works themselves do nothing to add to our salvation nor do they justify us before God. This has been taught by the Church since the first century but it got burried in the middle ages and they started burning people for teaching it. The only reason you guys think Luther made it up is because he was the first one from Claudius on to survive.
I am starting to see that Post-modernism is very compatible with the RCC.
237- I am not the one who is arrogant. The female “pastors” are the ones who are arrogant.
1 Timothy 2:12 (King James Version)
“12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
“It is the thinking that has led to many wars but it has not led to unity and not led to truth.”
No, politics leads to wars and there cannot be any unity at the expense of the Gospel. As I said before, doctrine divides darkness from light and I would gladly go the stake like William Tyndale or John Hus for the sake of the Gospel so get the kindling ready.
238- What about your interpetation of the RCC churches teaching? RCC claims not to be pelagian but that is what your argument demonstrated. I used to be a Pelagian and it does strike a nerve.
“You are pretending as if there is only one meaning possible in Scripture and that it is obvious, but the facts on the ground utterly contradict that idea.”
Oh, I see, I got it all wrong and really you’ve been agreeing with me the whole time it’s just that I missed three of the four levels of meaning of the text you have typed here. Come on guys, lets stick to the issues and admit that you either have no understanding of Lutheran or Reformed doctrine or are deliberately dodging the issues. You totally ignored the fact that by your interpretation Pelagianism is taught in the CCC.
@239
“And Paul does not say – Luther to the contrary – that a man is saved by faith alone, only that he is saved by faith.”
Epehsians 2:9″Not of works, lest any man should boast.”
“My question to Jason seems to me to stand still – who decides what the Bible teaches?”
Who is to decide what the newspaper says? Who is to decide what the text you provided here means?
@240- “The demand that Protestants make of scripture is unnatural and explains why so many of them come to such different conclusions.”
Then you must know everything.
“Jason acts as though his hermeneutic and the conclusions which he draws are self-evident, yet even Peter says that many of Paul’s writings are confusing and difficult to understand.”
“which they twist to their destruction” Obviously Peter was addressing antinomianism because Paul was teaching about Justification by Faith alone and some people don’t understand how that relates to works. Antinomianism on one side legalism on the other.
I can see everything I have said has fallen on deaf ears. I give up. I am out for two weeks on a mission. I will remember you guys in my prayers.
Jason,
The idea that good works do not contribute to justification is *not* clear from the Biblical texts. Now, as one of the formerly Reformed, I once thought that it was clear from the texts. That was because I had badly catechized, as a Catholic, and was thus ripe for accepting a Protestant interpretation of Scripture. I knew no better, so I bought into the Protestant paradigm and became very anti–Catholic. Whether you believe it or not, I actually sounded a good bit like you, when I spoke about Catholics and their denial of the “true Gospel,” which I took to be the “clear reading of Scripture”!
Jason, all of the authors of the articles here (and a good number of the authors of the comments, like myself) came from, and have been schooled in, Reformed Christianity. We know your arguments, because we used to use them ourselves– for some of us, lamentably, perhaps even on Catholics!
The idea of justification by faith alone is only “the clear meaning if Scripture” if one reads, and/or is taught, the texts from a *Protestant paradigm*. This is not clarity in meaning. It is a form of Protestant eisegesis.
Justification by faith alone was not the thinking of the early Church. I do know that there were men before Luther who held to his sort of thinking. They were considered heretics, precisely because justification by faith alone was *not* the understanding of the early Church. I am curious– have you read any of the writings of the Fathers themselves, or have you only read those writings, as quoted by Protestants?
I know, from my own time as a Protestant, that Protestant authors, such as James White, can make a case against Catholic teaching that is persuasive, to some degree– but only because these authors quote the Fathers out of context, misunderstand (and/or misrepresent) statements from Church councils and documents, and hone in on certain Scripture passages, reading them with “Protestant lenses,” either to the exclusion of other verses which don’t fit into their system, or wrenching those verses to fit their system. I did these things too as a Protestant. Again, I didn’t know any better.
From what I have seen, Reformed Christians who become Catholics do not do so because they were not well-schooled (steeped, even!) in Reformed exegesis and theology. It is largely the *better-schooled* Protestants who become Catholics. By contrast, most Catholics, of whom I’m aware, who become Protestants were poorly catechized Catholics– such as myself. When I began actually looking more deeply into Catholic Biblical exegesis, and reading the early Church Fathers, I began to realize that as a Protestant, I had bought into the wrong paradigm– exegetically, historically, theologically, and philosophically.
“No, the Bible is THE FINAL AUTHORITY, the confessions, councils and creeds are only authoritative in that they agree with scripture.”
But this principle–“the Bible is THE FINAL AUTHORITY, the confessions, councils and creeds are only authoritative in that they agree with scripture”–is itself a confession. So, if confessions are not authoritative, then we can, without contradiction, reject your confession as well. On the other hand, if your confession ought to be believed, it must believed on the grounds that it agrees with Scripture. But it does not agree with Scripture, since the Scripture never claims it is the final authority. And besides, it could not be, since the collection of books we call Scripture had to be compiled and thus the grounds for the compilation–what books belong and don’t belong in Scripture–is logically prior to the Scripture itself. Thus, there is an authority–the grounds of the compilation–that determines what belongs in Scripture. So, Scripture is not “the final authority.”
Now, if you want to claim that Scripture as final authority is your fundamental presupposition, that’s your right. But then one can say in response: It isn’t to me. And you will say: It is. And again: It isn’t. Now we are at an impasse that cannot be resolve by appealing to Scripture, since the debate is over whether Scripture is the final authority.
@Jason:
Does your response to my question mean that you have no answer? Or does it mean that the teachings of the Bible are so obvious that anyone who disagrees with you must be in bad faith – must not really believe what they are saying?
I believe Matthew 16:13-19 is a prophecy of the Papacy and is one of the many Scriptural proofs that God intends the Papacy; you, one presumes, do not. You – again, one presumes – state that it is obvious that that passage does not mean what I think it means. If I am wrong, I must either be in bad faith, or, perhaps, deluded by Satan.
But your (rhetorical, I presume) response doesn’t help. Since I do actually think that passage refers to the Papacy, is there no one in authority who can judge between our two interpretations?
I would appreciate it if you would just give me a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to this question:
When we disagree about a major Biblical passage, must we either accept loss of unity or loss of integrity?
jj
I also have to ask, from a Protestant’s viewpoint, which confession “agrees with Scripture” on the issue of baptism– the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist Confession…. which highlights the whole problem of the Protestant concept of the “plain meaning of Scripture,” when it comes to many different issues (including baptism but far from limited to it).
I also have to ask, from a Protestant’s viewpoint, which confession “agrees with Scripture” on the issue of baptism– the Westminster Confession or the 1689 London Baptist Confession…. which highlights the whole problem of the Protestant concept of the “plain meaning of Scripture,” when it comes to many different issues (including baptism but far from limited to it).
Christopher,
I’m a Presbyterian and so the London Confession is not mine, but the consensus between the London Confession and the other confessions of the Reformation era is quite remarkable. There are however a few issues where there is not consensus and you have hit on one of them. The meaning, efficacy, and mode of baptism is a matter where the Reformed family of churches don’t have clear consensus. The “plain meaning of Scripture” does not apply to every single issue in Christian theology and this is one of them. There are complex and difficult issues in theology as Peter speaks about, and we are not trying to pretend that Scripture speaks with equal clarity on all matters. The situation is analogous to what happens Catholic theology – there are matters of dogma but also matters where there are multiple allowable opinions.
On a practical note, we have baptists in my church. They just don’t get the whole infant baptist thing. But that’s OK, it’s really not a big issue for us. That does not mean that baptism is not important, only that we are not dogmatic where the Scriptures are not explicit.
Andrew,
I appreciate your reply. In a way though, your response actually makes one of the major points of the above article, which is that in some significant ways, the theology and practice of contemporary Reformed churches are quite different than historic Reformed theology and practice. Calvin apparently considered infant baptism to be so clear from the Scriptures, and actually *essential for salvation*, that he strongly asserted that anyone who disagreed with him on the practice was not a Christian. “The plain meaning of Scripture,” to Calvin on this subject, is not clear at all to modern-day Calvinists– or, one might say that if it *is* clear to them, it is “clear” in exactly the opposite way, meaning that mode of baptism is considered a “non-essential,” not a matter of salvation.
Therefore, for Reformed Protestants, who makes the ultimate determination of what is, and is not, the “clear meaning of Scripture” on an issue such as baptism, or even justification– thinking here of the Federal Vision controversy among PCA’ers? If the “essentials” are clear, why was there even an FV controversy in the first place? Who ultimately gets to decide what are the “essentials” and “non-essentials”? How is such an authoritative determination made within Reformed Protestant theology and ecclesiology?
Andrew-
I, too, appreciate your participation in this thread. Thank you.
That is, despite the fact that Christ spoke of baptism in these terms:
Rather than acknowledging that Calvin left his “family of churches” with no means by which this most fundamental of issues could be settled, you’ve relegated it entirely.
This is exactly what John Thayer Jensen said must happen (comment #246). Doctrinal integrity (relegation of baptism) is sacrificed for the sake of unity (“…we have baptists in my church”).
thanks- herbert vander lugt
Christopher,
I’m sure there are Catholics theologians that you greatly appreciate, but that on some or maybe a number of issues you would disagree with. So it is a similar matter with Calvin. We do not hold Calvin to be some super-spiritual giant, and neither did Calvin himself. He was a child of his environment like we all are.
On Federal Vision, this is just one of many theological controversies to hit the Reformed Churches, and for the vast majority of these communions they have dealt with the matter well. I would say that like in the Reformed family of churches, as in the Reformation, we are still unified on the matter of justification. At the Reformation there was quite a wide variety of theologies of justification, all allowable within the pronouncements of the Council of Carthage (the last council to deal with the matter that was available to the Medieval Church). The unity on justification was considerably greater in the Reformed camp than it was in the Catholic one. My observation is that even after Trent that this was still the case.
Herbert – I feel quite confident that those following the London Confession and those following other Reformed confessions would agree on the implications of your quote from John above.
Andrew,
Individual theologians claiming to be Catholic may have any number of different opinions, but the Pope and the Magisterium, teaching in communion with him, speak with a clear voice on the things that are essential for Catholics to believe. This is why we Catholics have one Catechism, to which we can all point and tell you, “This is the compendium of our ecclesiology and beliefs as Catholics. This Catechism, and the Pope and Magisterium responsible for it, can settle disputes between us as Catholics.”
Therefore, when you compare Calvin’s statements, as to one’s beliefs on the nature of baptism or the Lord’s Supper as being *essential for salvation*, to differing statements of claimed “Catholic” theologians today, the comparison is not at all the same. We have one Catechism to help in settling disputes. It is authoritative for all Catholics. Do historic Reformed churches have anything comparable that is truly authoritative for them and can unite them on questions about which various Reformed theologians differ?
A perfectly valid question here is, who has declared *authoritatively*, for all Reformed Christians today, that Calvin’s statements on what is essential for salvation are *wrong*? Who even has the authority to make such definitive declarations within the Reformed world?
If the PCA, OPC, and all other historic Reformed churches attempted to join together for a meeting to make such a definitive declaration, couldn’t a splinter group simply form from that meeting and say, “WE are the truly historic Reformed church, because we hold that Calvin is *right* on infant baptism and a non-symbolic view of the Lord’s Supper being essential for salvation. Therefore, any Reformed church which holds to views other than those of Calvin is *not* a truly ‘historic Reformed church!'”? What exactly would be inconsistent about such a charge, Andrew? How would other Reformed churches defend themselves against it?
I would be interested in documentation, pertaining to your statements that “the unity on justification was considerably greater in the Reformed camp than it was in the Catholic one. My observation is that even after Trent that this was still the case.”
Andrew, how are such statements justifiable, given that the one, worldwide, Catholic Church was able to call one council (Trent) to speak authoritatively on the subject, while various Reformed churches (at least from what I know) could do nothing of the sort?
I am way behind on all this and haven’t read anything but the last post but in response to 52. The Lutheran’s have the book of Concord and the Reformed have Dort, the Heidleberg Chatecism, and the Belgic confession, the Presbyterians have the Westminster Confession and Catechism. These are the respective churches interpretations of scripture laid out and are based on Scripture alone and their disagreements are relatively minor and conform to scripture quite nicely. The CCC however can be shown to be opposed to scripture in many things but Roman Catholics are expected to believe what ever the pope says. It has been asserted here that I read scripture through the lense of Lutheranism. This is not the case. Luther points me to Christ who points me to Himself and He says the scriptures are authoritative and if the Scriptures are in agreement with the Formula of Concord I must necessarily accept those confessions as a correct interpretation of scripture. The Pope appeals to scripture for his authority (by ignoring the finer details of the text) and then claims that he has the authority to put forth an interpretation of scripture binding on all Christians regardless of what the text says. The Pope argues in a circle for his authority.
Jason,
Your reply was basically a series of assertions and not even an attempt at making any arguments to prove those assertions. You assert that that the Catechism of the Catholic Church “can be shown to be opposed to Scripture in many things.” That the Catechism is, in certain areas, on certain subjects, opposed to *your interpretation of Scripture*, I would agree.
However, how do you know that your interpretation of Scripture is the *correct* one? How do you know that Luther’s interpretation of justification is the correct one? I’m not playing postmodern mind games, or language games, here. The questions that I’m asking are perfectly valid.
You write that:
“Luther points me to Christ who points me to Himself and He says the scriptures are authoritative and if the Scriptures are in agreement with the Formula of Concord I must necessarily accept those confessions as a correct interpretation of scripture.” Why do you trust Luther as the correct guide to point you to Christ?
Explain to me how I am wrong on the following: It appears that you have *determined* Luther’s interpretation of the Scriptures to be the correct one, and hence, you have *decided*, on the basis of your agreement with Luther’s interpretation of Scripture, that Luther points you to Christ, and that, for this reason, you will “submit” to Lutheran church authority.
How is the above process not one of selecting the church authority, to which you will “submit,” on the basis of *your personal agreement* with that authority’s understanding of Scripture– which would ultimately mean, submission to yourself?
You write that the Pope “appeals to Scripture for his authority (by ignoring the finer details of the text.” Jason, Pope Benedict XVI is a Biblical scholar who have been studying the Scriptures for several decades? How is that you are so certain that he is “ignoring the finer details of the text,” while you, yourself, are seeing them clearly and understanding them correctly? It seems that you are placing an incredible degree of confidence in your interpretation of the Biblical text to make a such a charge against a man who has been a Biblical scholar longer than most of us have been alive!
It won’t do to simply say, “I am reading Scripture for what it says,” because Pentecostals interpret Scripture differently than Lutherans, while claiming to read Scripture for what it says, and Lutherans interpret differently than Baptists, while claiming to read Scripture for what it says, and N.T. Wright, a conservative *Protestant* Biblical scholar, has an understanding of justification that many Protestants would say is heretical! Who decides what the “clear reading of Scripture” is, Jason? Protestants certainly can’t seem to agree among themselves on that clear reading.
Sorry for the typos, Jason– if anything in my comment wasn’t intelligible, let me know, and I will clarify.
Christopher,
Jason has already shown us his modus operandi. He assumes that scripture is perspicuous with regard to all the doctrines he claims to find there. A few posts ago I gave philological reasons for questioning this assumption and pointed out that the scriptures themselves teach that much of what’s written is hard to understand; Jason merely ignored the entire thrust of my point and leveled another assertion about what Peter meant when he said that Paul is hard to understand. Jason has assumed that he is not one of those people who,in his ignorance, twists Paul to his own destruction. He has assumed that the bible is meant to be read like an iPod instruction manual. These assumptions allow him to come to the conclusion that I see many other Protestants assert: that if you don’t agree with them, you are either stupid or unregenerate. He has already stated this. It doesn’t matter to him that Pentecostals also claim to be reading Scripture correctly; he can simply write them off as being stupid or unregenerate because of his assumptions about the nature of the text and his own interpretive capabilities. Finally, I have to say I found the end of his last post simply amusing. So far his posts have consisted of nothing but unargued assertions, sound-bytes, and insults, and then he complains that his words are “falling on deaf ears.” He “gives up.” I’ll have to be excused for not buying the tone of exasperation, as if he were actually trying to have a fruitful dialogue.
David:
The notion that everybody who rejects one’s theology is either stupid or ill-willed is inevitable for those who believe in the formal sufficiency of Scripture. Some are just more polite than others about it.
Best,
Mike
Jason,
To where are you going to do missionary work? Just curious.
I believe that we would both agree that Protestantism, as a whole, is comprised of thousands upon thousands of divided and bickering sects, and that, as a whole, Protestantism has neither a unity of theology nor confesses a unity of doctrine. My question is this, do most “bible alone” Protestants really think that a person who is not a member of their particular sect is either “stupid or ill-willed”? How could a person believe that is true on the one hand, and on the other hand, also believe that they have the God-given right to go church shopping among thousands of Protestant sects that they don’t belong to at a particular moment in time?
It seems to me that the psychology of denial is at play here. Denial allows the ordinary modern day Protestant to belong to a particular sect and to also cling to the “right” to go church shopping whenever that suits his or her needs. The psychology of denial allows one to maintain that various sects that one personally finds acceptable are only divided over “non-essentials” and that they are not divided over fundamental matters of doctrine. What constitutes the “essentials” of Christian doctrine are, of course, wholly subjective for the “bible alone” Protestant. Ultimately, the essentials of Christian doctrine are what the trinity of me, myself and I determines them to be.
You assert that the Lutheran sects and the Reformed sects that accept these specific documents have differences that are only “relatively minor”. If the Protestant sects that accept these documents are not, in reality, seriously divided over matters of doctrine, then why don’t they all get together and form one unified church?
mateo:
By no means do all “bible alone” Protestants believe in the “formal sufficiency” of Scripture. Many of the former say they believe in the latter, but really don’t. My remarks were directed solely against those who really do, such as Jason.
That said, I’m sure your remarks about the “psychology of denial” are true of many Protestants. Just not all.
Best,
Mike
@58- Who said anything about “missionary work”? Do you have a need to know?
@ 54- “How do you know that Luther’s interpretation of justification is the correct one?”
What about Bernard of Clairveux, Claudius of Turin, or Hilary of Poitiers. Are they wrong on justification too?
I don’t think you guys are stupid. In fact I think RC theologians are quite brilliant IQ-wise but they are theologians of glory and not theologians of the cross, and are decieved. They confuse the law and the gospel and end up preaching gLAWspel which is no Gospel at all. The fact is, the way Rome uses the Bible is they have these systems and doctrines that they have set up (which have evolved down through the centuries) and rather than admit that they are fallible and in error they takes verses out of context from the Bible to fit their doctrine. Lutherans however take their doctrine from scripture and then lay out what the scriptures teach in the Lutheran cnofessions. If there were any error in it we would have found it by now and corrected it. What it really comes down to is the bondage of the will. Rome wants to climb up to God by her own efforts but that is not how God would have it. He comes to us in His word and sacrements and saves us by His works on His merits and will not share the glory with anyone. Rome confuses the role of works and does not understand that good works are fruits of faith, not roots. The Gospel is the root, works for our neighbor are the fruit. Several post earlier someone said that in Gelations when Paul speaks of works he is talking only of things like sacrifices and circumcision (spelling?). If that is the case why does Paul bring up both circumcision and Sinai? Both the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic? Sinai includes the Ten Commandments right? How then is Paul not talking about the whole Law especially since he says if one wishes to be justified by the law he must keep the whole law perfectly.
One question I want to ask you all. In your own words what is the Gospel?
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.xxxii.html
What do you all say to this?
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/bernard/letters.xliii.html?highlight=justified#highlight
And this?
Jason, (re: #262)
St. Clement’s statement, which you are asking about, is this:
The saving faith of which St. Clement speaks is faith informed by agape, not faith uninformed by agape. We can see this in various places in his epistle. St. Clement writes:
Notice that it was not her faith alone that saved her. He continues:
For St. Clement the person without love is not united to God, and is therefore not justified. The person without love remains unforgiven. The person without love is not “well-pleasing to God”. So the person with faith alone, but lacking love, is not justified.
St. Clement continues:
Notice again, love isn’t merely an expression of gratitude that our sins are forgiven. Only by the presence of agape in us are our sins forgiven. Hence faith alone (so long as it is not informed by love) does not justify.
St. Clement continues:
The faith of Abraham was a faith working through love. Not just mere faith alone.
St. Clement continues:
For St. Clement the faith by which Abraham was blessed was a faith informed by love, and which thereby wrought righteousness.
So these other places in St. Clement’s epistle explain how the passage in 32 should be interpreted as referring to a faith informed by love, not faith alone. This is also how St. Augustine understood justification by faith, as I recently showed here. (See also here.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason,
There are so many clear statements of the Catholic position on justification in the second (longer) passage you linked us to – the position that Clement taught when your cherry-picked passage is read in context as Bryan has shown above, and the position that Augustine and the conciliar Church has always taught – that I almost wonder whether you linked us to it on accident and meant to choose another passage.
This is exactly what the Church has always said and continues to say. Notice how he said that we are justified by love and that we live by faith, a faith that works by love.
Again, love springing from faith is the source of our justification.
Bold added because this quotation is longer than the two above. Infusion of grace, mortification of the deeds of the flesh, faith working by love again.
Am I missing something here?
Jason,
Sometimes as Catholics we just cannot win. We are accused of having a theology of glory by some, like yourself and others accuse us of keeping Christ on the cross and emphasizing suffering too much. It sort of reminds me of what Chesterton wrote about the Catholic Church being attacked on all sides. Just maybe, maybe She can be attacked on all sides because in her very heart She has been entrusted with the truth of Christ.
(“No, no, jj, you shouldn’t do it! Well, maybe the monitors will reject it…”)
Gelations – is that a reference to the Frozen Chosen? :-)
jj
@64 if Rahab had not had faith she might not have acted. If she did the same without faith then it would not have been a good work for without faith it is impossible to please God. See Romans and Hebrews. If Clement did not believe in justification by faith alone then why does he add this warning?
“What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us!”
Love is a fruit of faith.
Galatians 5:22 (New International Version)
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness
@65 What about the part about being justified by the blood of Christ. Yes love is a fruit of justifying living faith but the works are not what justify us before God. See Romans.
Romans 4:6
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Romans 4:11
And 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 them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
Romans 4:22
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
Romans 4:23
Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
Romans 4:24
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;
Romans 5:13
(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
James 2:23
And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
Justifying living faith ALONE brings the fruit of good works. All other works are filthy stinking wrags.
Jason wrote:
“One question I want to ask you all. In your own words what is the Gospel?”
Answer: Colossians 1:27
“God has chosen to make known among the Gentiles the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”
Or again, Romans 6:4:
“We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. “
Or perhaps even better, 1 Cor 15:1-7…
That is the Gospel. Notice that it doesn’t say anything about justification, imputed righteousness, or monergism.
Jason (re# 268),
One thing that I never seriously considered, when I was a Protestant, is that perhaps I was wrong in my interpretation of the Biblical passages on justification. I was convinced that these passages set up an “either/or” dichotomy– either we are justified before God on the basis of our faith, alone, in Christ, and are saved, or we are *trying* to be justified before God by our works, and we are damned. Given that I was convinced that the Bible taught this “either/or” dichotomy, I wanted to be sure that I was on the right side of it, which, of course, for Protestants, is the “faith alone” side. Again, I never seriously considered that my interpretation itself might be wrong.
Catholics *do not believe* that we are justified before God because of our works. We simply do not believe that. We agree with the Bible in all that it says, including when it calls righteous deeds “filthy rags.” However, such Biblical statements have a context, and it is crucial to understand this context. Our good works are “filthy rags,” when we try to offer them up to God, apart from the redeeming blood of Christ. Works alone do not justify anyone before God.
However, the Bible also states that faith alone does not justify anyone before God. James is very clear that faith without works is dead. Faith alone, without works, simply *does not justify*– that is the clearest, most direct reading of James’ statements. If faith without works is dead, how can it justify?
When Protestants say– as I did myself, as a Protestant– that James is referring to a different sort of justification than Paul (justification of one’s faith before man, evidence of one’s faith), they are not engaging with the clearest, most direct reading of the text. Again, I did this myself, as a Protestant. I had to do it, in order to maintain my “faith alone justifies” reading of Paul. This reading was simply mistaken. I was wrong.
When Paul writes about being justified by faith apart from works of the law, the surrounding context of those verses is works of the Jewish law, such as circumcision, which some Jews thought made them “right” before God, and which some Jewish Christians thought that Gentiles *must* partake in in order to be faithful Christians. Paul is saying, “Circumcision and other such works of the Jewish law are not sufficient to justify anyone before God. ” Paul is not teaching Martin Luther’s idea of “faith alone,” in which good works play absolutely no role in justification.
Works alone do not justify. Faith alone does not justify. The Biblical teaching does not set up an “either/or” dichotomy in relation to justification and faith and works. Now, to be clear, when a person first comes to trust in Christ, that person has nothing but works, and works without faith do not justify. In that sense, then, a person’s first trusting in Christ does bring initial justification. However, in order for that justification to continue (because as the author of Hebrews warns us, one truly can fall away from the living God), faith and works are commanded by the Bible. Faith without works is dead. The Biblical teaching is “both/and,” not “either/or.”
@69- That is a crossless answere and therefor another Gospel.
@70- Right on but your conclusion ignors Paul’s epistle to the Romans which is a systematic theology in itself. Also, the church has always taught monogerism and condemned syngerism as heresy.
@71 – The idea that Paul and James are talking about a different kind of justification is just silly and not doctrinally and exegetically competent protestant teaches that. You have to look at James whole argument and consider the meaning. Ask yourself this. Is dead faith really faith? No, it’s kicked the bucket, it’s a non person. Are good works that are dead without faith good works? No, same thing, kicked the bucket. Therfore faithalone does justify and bringsforth good fruit (good works) in keeping with repentance. Why are these works good and a Muslim’s or Budhist’s good works not? Because they are not sactified by the blood of the Lamb of God.
See Ephesians 2:8-10 with carefull consideration of verse 10.
I LOVE you guys!
Jason,
@272
“Is dead faith really faith? No, it’s kicked the bucket”
James 2:26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.
Is a dead body apart from the spirit still a body? Of course it is. Is dead faith still faith? It is if this verse is to make any sense. A body does not cease to be a body at death. It becomes a lifeless body. Faith does not cease to be faith when it dies. It becomes lifeless (supernaturally). Dead faith is still faith.
Jason,
When did the Church condemn synergism? The Church has always believed in a monergistic initial justification and a synergistic progression in our life with God in which we cooperate with God’s subsequent grace (gratia cooperativa as Augustine calls it).
Your interpretation of James 2 is just that, an interpretation. It’s not what the text says. James says clearly that we are not justified by faith alone. He says clearly that Abraham and Rahab were justified by works. Their faith was “brought to completion (τελειόω)” by their works (James 2:22). A thing that is non-existent,i.e. the faith that is not really faith as you say, cannot brought to “completion.” A thing that exists but is only in a state of potentiality towards its end can be brought to completion; a thing that does not actually exist is not brought to completion but brought into existence. So you are making mince-meat out of James’ words because you have to cram him into your system. No where does he indicate that faith without works is not actually faith. That is your interpretation. This is why all those incompetent Protestants say that James and Paul are talking about different kinds of justification; they realize that James is clearly saying we are justified in some way by our works. You and the “incompetent” Protestants are doing two different kinds of exegetical backflips to make the text say something other than what it clearly says because you have a systematic theology that requires it and your systematization is based on a misreading of Paul. Since we know that Paul never says we are justified by faith alone, we can see that James and Paul are in agreement from the very passage I quoted above from 1 Cor 15 when Paul says we must “hold fast” to what we received. If we do not “hold fast” to what we receive, we believed in vain. Notice Paul does not say “you never really believed,” but “you believed in vain,” i.e. our believing was not brought to fulfillment (to use James’ terminology) by perseverance in love, which is the fulfillment of the law.
These teachings of Paul and James square perfectly with Jesus’ own teaching, as in the parable of the talents. God freely gives us a talent (monergism) but we must do something with that talent (synergism); we must bring about the appreciation of our talent. If we do not do anything with that talent, it is not the case that we never received a talent, rather we are cast into darkness for having faith alone (the unappreciated talent, the faith in which we did not hold fast, the faith that was not made complete by works). This is what the Church always taught, and it’s the received faith from which the Reformers represent a decisive break.
Thank you for your love. We love you too and are glad to have you here taking part in these discussions.
Jason @272
“Also, the church has always taught monogerism and condemned syngerism as heresy.”
Huh? Which church? The church has always championed Grace Alone but not monergism.
Question for you…..Was Christ’s human nature, his human will, and his human operation monergistically operated by His divine nature?
Jason wrote:
“@70- Right on but your conclusion ignors Paul’s epistle to the Romans which is a systematic theology in itself. ”
I submit that this is one of the grave errors of Protestant (and some Catholic) hermeneutics.
Paul did not write a systematic theology in Romans (in the sense in which the term is generally used),
but rather an answer to the question “What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?” (Romans 3:1)
I appreciate Krister Stendhal’s observation that Paul was not cited and commented on in the 1st three centuries of the Church like he was in subsequent centuries (as a systematic theologian) because the fathers understood that he was addressing precisely those issues he claimed to be addressing – namely, Jew/Gentile relations and the role of the mosaic law. Only post-augustine does the topic of justification come to be understood as a catch-all for every aspect of soteriology.
“Also, the church has always taught monogerism and condemned syngerism as heresy.”
Hmmm, this is a pretty bold claim, and I wonder how one would go about substantiating it. Who speaks for the Church here?
Clearly the Eastern Orthodox Church has long taught a form of synergism, and they have plenty of Church Fathers to appeal to on behalf of their position, ranging from St John Chrysostom to St Maximus the Confessor. One cannot reasonably claim on behalf of monergism the consensual teaching of the patristic Church–quite the contrary!
In the Western Church the canons of the second synod of Orange has enjoyed dogmatic authority, but the Eastern Church has never received these canons. The Catholic Church, of course, acknowledges these canons as authoritative, but this acknowledgement depends on their approval by the Bishop of Rome and the Council of Trent. I do not know how a Protestant can appeal to II Orange to support the claim that “the” Church has “always” taught monergism and condemned synergism.
And then there is the question of the proper interpretation of the canons of Orange. One thing is clear: the synod affirms, as did St Augustine, a grace-enabled synergism subsequent to Holy Baptism (see Rebecca Harden Weaver, *Divine Grace and Human Agency: A Study of the Semi-Pelagian Controversy*). Whatever the Latin Church’s rejection of “semi-Pelagianism” means, it does not mean that the baptized do not, by grace, possess the freedom to truly and authentically cooperate with God.
I would love to see a Catholic/Orthodox discussion of Orange and Trent on synergism.
Jason at #262 quotes Clement 32, which if taken isolated indeed appears to support sola fide:
“And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.”
And then in #268 quotes Clement 33 interpreting his exhortation to practice love and “perform every good work” as just an advice, not a truly necessary requisite for salvation:
“What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. … Having therefore such an example, let us without delay accede to His will, and let us work the work of righteousness with our whole strength.”
However, in 34 Clement makes it clear that it is a requisite:
“The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing;”
And in 35 Clement makes it crystal clear that we must “do the things which are in harmony with God’s will” “in order that we may share in His promised gifts”. So much for sola fide.
“Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those that wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith towards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vain glory and ambition. For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them.”
Jason at #243:
” If you look at the context in James he says that works without faith are dead and faith without works is dead.”
Correct, though the first statement is usually assigned to Paul.
“Good works are a FRUIT of faith.”
Correct, but I add that they are a necessary fruit.
“Works themselves do nothing to add to our salvation.”
Here is the problem. In this post I will show that works are necessary to remain in salvation. This is stated clearly by John, both in positive statements (Jn ch 14 and 15):
“Whoever has my commandments and observes them is the one who loves me. And whoever loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and reveal myself to him.” (Jn 14:21)
“Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” (Jn 14:23)
“Remain in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and remain in his love.” (Jn 15:9-10)
“You are my friends if you do what I command you. … This I command you: love one another.” (Jn 15:14,17)
and in negative statements (I Jn ch 3):
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life remaining in him. (I Jn 3:15)
If someone who has worldly means sees a brother in need and refuses him compassion, how can the love of God remain in him? (I Jn 3:17)
And of course there is this precious gem from Paul:
And whoever does not provide for relatives and especially family members has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. (I Tim 5:8)
77- The East exhonerated Pelagius.
78 and 79-
“Good works are a FRUIT of faith.”
Correct, but I add that they are a necessary fruit
Right, because one who has faith can’t help but do good works for their neighbor. No matter how much civil righteousness a Muslim performs, on judgment day all his works will be judged evil because a Muslim does not have faith.
Paul clearly teaches that we are justified apart from works. James is not in opposition to this but attacking those who would separate the root (faith in Jesus) from the fruit (good works for your neighbor).
https://www.carm.org/semi-pelagianism
https://www.carm.org/pelagianism
David Pell #274:
“When did the Church condemn synergism? The Church has always believed in a monergistic initial justification and a synergistic progression in our life with God in which we cooperate with God’s subsequent grace (gratia cooperativa as Augustine calls it).”
In my view, the Church does not even believe that initial justification is monergistic. Quoting Trent session 6 chapter 5:
The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.
Johannes,
It seems to me that there is some room for monergism in regards strictly to operating grace. But at the moment we are able to cooperate with the grace, it is thought of as co-operating grace and therefore synergistic. St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine:
“God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, beings by operating that they may will.” (Summa 2a.111.2 – emphasis added)
Subsequently St. Thomas says,
So it might be an oversimplification to say that the Church teaches monergism in regard to initial justification if we take the first of the above ways to be initial justification. Both of the ways (where God moves us and where God bestows a habitual gift) may be fittingly divided into operating and cooperating grace. But St. Thomas apparently does allow for monergism in regard to operating grace.
Jason at #243:
“Works themselves do nothing to add to our salvation.”
Let’s listen first to the Teacher Himself:
“And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones to drink because he is a disciple–amen, I say to you, he will surely not lose his reward.” (Mt 10:42)
This is expanded in the Last Judgment passage, which I will not quote for obvious reasons (Mt 25:31-46). And if it was argued that the works of charity are necessary to remain in salvation but do not add to salvation, the previous parable where the talent of the lazy servant was given to the servant who already had ten talents should clear the matter.
“Sell your belongings and give alms. Provide money bags for yourselves that do not wear out, an inexhaustible treasure in heaven that no thief can reach nor moth destroy.” (Lk 12:33)
“There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Lk 18:22)
Let’s now go to Paul:
But each one must be careful how he builds upon it, for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire (itself) will test the quality of each one’s work. If the work stands that someone built upon the foundation, that person will receive a wage. But if someone’s work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire. (1 Cor 3:10-15)
Sometimes the Apostle uses the metaphor of a temple, which God builds with our cooperation, and other times he uses the metaphor of a body, which God makes grow with our cooperation. Sometimes both are used simultaneously, as in Ef 4:11-16, from which I quote:
Rather, living the truth in love, we should grow in every way into him who is the head, Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and held together by every supporting ligament, with the proper functioning of each part, brings about the body’s growth and builds itself up in love. (Ef 4:15-16)
Then there is this:
we do not cease praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of his will through all spiritual wisdom and understanding to live in a manner worthy of the Lord, so as to be fully pleasing, in every good work bearing fruit and growing in the knowledge of God, (Col 1:9-10)
which is related to:
make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, virtue with knowledge, knowledge with self-control, self-control with endurance, endurance with devotion, devotion with mutual affection, mutual affection with love. If these are yours and increase in abundance, they will keep you from being idle or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (2 Pe 1:5-8)
As the last two quotes mention “knowledge”, let’s learn from Jesus what that is:
“Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (Jn 17:3)
If this knowledge is eternal life, it cannot be purely intellectual. This is made crystal clear by John:
Whoever says, “I know him,” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him. (I Jn 2:4)
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is of God; everyone who loves is begotten by God and knows God. Whoever is without love does not know God, for God is love. (I Jn 4:7-8)
So, if salvation is having eternal life, and if eternal life is vital knowledge of God, and if
by “living in a manner worthy of the Lord”, i.e. “living the truth in love”, we can “in every good work bear fruit and grow in the knowledge of God”, then by good works we not only remain in salvation but also can grow in salvation = eternal life = God’s love. As John says:
if we love one another, God remains in us, and his love is brought to perfection in us. (I Jn 4:12)
“I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” Matt 25:35-36
No one does the works of mercy without exercising their freewill to roll up their sleeves and get to work. And doing the works of mercy – the saving works that, in the end, separates the sheep from the goats – always involves an effort and a struggle against our inclinations to not do them.
The idea that the True Christian “can’t help but do good works for their neighbor” is folly that contradicts everyone’s experience in the real world. This peculiar teaching of Calvinism – that irresistible grace inevitably forces the True Christian to perform the works of mercy – can lead to what an ex-Presbyterian friend of mine described as salvation anxiety. She told me that she was taught as a Preysbetrian that if one is really one of the elect, then the works of mercy should automatically manifest in her life. But she knew that unless she made the effort to do the works of mercy, that the works of mercy never manifested; and since doing the works of mercy required an effort and a struggle against her inclinations to not do them, she was never sure if she was really a True Christian. It was a relief for her to become a Catholic, because the Catholic Church gets real; the Catholic Church has never taught that doing the works of mercy comes without a struggle on the part of the believer. One must choose to shut off the television and go visit a sick person. One must choose to get involved in a prison ministry. One struggles to make those choices, but by faith, one believes that God will grant the grace necessary to do the works of mercy even when doing the works of mercy are difficult to do.
Tim,
In #281 what I mean by “initial justification” is the process that culminates at baptism, usually called simply “justification”. That process is clearly synergistic.
On the other hand, if we focus only on “the initial step of initial justification”, that of course is monergistic, as the initiative definitely belongs to God in the order of grace. As the Council says:
“the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God”.
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.” (VI.5)
This passage from Trent quoted by Joahannes does raise an interesting question or two. Does Trent leave open the question whether God gives prevenient grace in such a way that it cannot be ultimately and effectually resisted? Augustinians and Thomists will no doubt read the passage in a way that supports the irresistibility of grace with regard to initial justification, yet there remains the qualification “forasmuch as he is also able to reject it.”
This is not unimportant for Catholic/Orthodox discussion.
Jason (re:#280),
All of of us here, who were Reformed Protestants, once believed as you do now on justification. We have heard the Reformed arguments, and most of us, if not all, made those arguments, ourselves, to other people. As Catholics, we see the faultiness of the arguments that we once made. It is just not so simple as to say that (in your words) “Paul clearly teaches that we are justified apart from works.” James does *not* say that good works are a “fruit of faith.” He states that man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
Taken together with Jesus’ statements on good works in the Christian’s life, and Paul’s statements on faith, the clear Biblical teaching (if one is not trying to read “faith alone” into the texts) is that we are justified by both faith and works. Again, the Bible just does not teach that good works are simply a “fruit of faith” or the “evidence of faith.”
One other thought– if it is silly, as you opine that it is, for a Biblical exegete to posit that James is referring to a different kind of justification, or a different way of understanding justification, than is Paul (and I agree that it *is* silly, actually), then every “mainstream” (non-Auburn Avenue Presbyterian) Reformed exegete whom I have ever read or heard has a silly interpretation of the second chapter of James….
Cristopher (re #283)
We need to be accurate about what we mean when we state (or deny) that “good works are a fruit of faith”. And within that expression, we need to be accurate about what we mean by “faith”.
Regarding faith:
Is it “living faith”, “faith working through charity” or “expressing itself through charity” (Gal 5:6), faith that is “active along with works”, and “completed by works” (James 2:22)?
Or is it purely intellectual faith, “faith alone” (James 2:24), which “without works” is “useless”, “dead faith” (James 2:17,26)?
Regarding “good works are a fruit of faith” (and leaving aside for the moment “which” faith):
A. Do we mean that if there is faith, there will necessary be good works (i.e. faith is necessary and sufficient for the existence of good works)?
B. Or do we mean that for there to be good works, there must be faith, but the existence of faith does not guarantee that there will be good works (i.e. faith is necessary for the existence of good works, but not sufficient)?
Combining A and B with “living faith” and “faith alone”, the answers are:
A + “living faith”: true (that’s the definition of “living faith” = “faith alone” + charity)
A + “faith alone”: false
B + “living faith”: false
B + “faith alone”: true
Clearly by “good works” we mean “works of charity whereby the faithful grows in God’s love”. Surely a non-Christian can perform objectively good works.
My previous comment actually referred to Christopher’s comment #285. Sorry.
Jason.
It should be noted that it was the Catholic Church that defined both semi-pelagianism and pelagianism as heresy.
Sean,
That’s what I have to remind my uncle every time I visit him and he starts asserting that the Catholic Church teaches that “works” are what gets us in to heaven (with the implication that they are graceless acts without faith). The conversation usually goes like this:
Uncle: You Catholics believe that it is by your works that you are saved because that’s what your non-biblical Church teaches.
Me: Actually, the Church teaches that we are saved by Grace. You imply Pelagianism in your statement, and that was declared a heresy by the Catholic Church centuries before the Reformation. So, logically, because the Church condemned that system of belief as heresy, it cannot be Church doctrine.
Uncle: Yeah, but your Church teaches that it is by your works that you are saved.
Me: If the Church declared that line of thinking a heresy, how can one believe that is what is officially taught by the Church? By saying that, you could also say that the Church teaches Sola Scriptura or Sola Fide, but you know that the Church doesn’t teach those things. So, why assert that the Church would teach something else that has been declared a heresy?
Uncle: Yeah, but that’s what your Church teaches.
Me: No, it doesn’t
Uncle: Yes, it does.
Me: I know you are but what am I? (just kidding, but you get the idea)
@283- In my youth I grew up in a Church where there wasn’t a whole lot of sound doctrine being taught and I had a functionally Roman Catholic view though I didn’t know it. When I read Paul’s epistle to the Romans the first time I thought “It can’t be!”, but it is. I thought it was too good to be true, and it is by human understanding, yet it is absolutely true.
“Taken together with Jesus’ statements on good works in the Christian’s life, and Paul’s statements on faith, the clear Biblical teaching (if one is not trying to read “faith alone” into the texts) is that we are justified by both faith and works. Again, the Bible just does not teach that good works are simply a “fruit of faith” or the “evidence of faith.””
Ephesians 2:8-10 (English Standard Version)
8For(A) by grace you HAVE BEEN saved(B) through FAITH. And this is(C) NOT your own doing;(D) it is the GIFT of God, 9(E) NOT a result of WORKS,(F) so that NO ONE MAY BOAST. 10For(G) we are HIS workmanship,(H) CREATED IN Christ Jesus(I) FOR GOOD WORKS,(J) which GOD PREPARED beforehand,(K) that we should walk in them.
Romans 3:26-28 (English Standard Version)
26It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the JUSTIFIER of the one who has faith in Jesus.
27(A) Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28For we hold that one is justified by faith(B) APART FROM WORKS of the law.
Colossians 3
1(A) If then you HAVE been raised with Christ, seek(B) the things that are above, where Christ is,(C) seated at the right hand of God.
Hebrews 1:3 (English Standard Version)
3He is the radiance of the glory of God and(A) the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power.(B) After making purification for sins,(C) he sat down(D) at the right hand of the Majesty on high,
1 John 2:2 (English Standard Version)
2(A) He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but(B) also for the sins of the whole world.
Romans 4
1What then shall we say was gained by[a] Abraham,(A) our forefather according to the flesh? 2For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but(B) not before God. 3For what does the Scripture say?(C) “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness.”
Matthew 3:7-9 (English Standard Version)
7But when he saw many of(A) the Pharisees and(B) Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them,(C) “You brood of(D) vipers! Who warned you to flee from(E) the wrath to come? 8Bear FRUIT(F) in keeping with repentance. 9And do not presume to say to yourselves,(G) ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from(H) these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Acts 26:20 (English Standard Version)
20but declared first(A) to those in Damascus,(B) then in Jerusalem and throughout all the region of Judea, and also(C) to the Gentiles, that they should(D) repent and(E) turn to God, performing deeds(F) in keeping with their repentance.
Works flow from faith.
“One other thought– if it is silly, as you opine that it is, for a Biblical exegete to posit that James is referring to a different kind of justification, or a different way of understanding justification, than is Paul (and I agree that it *is* silly, actually), then every “mainstream” (non-Auburn Avenue Presbyterian) Reformed exegete whom I have ever read or heard has a silly interpretation of the second chapter of James….”
“Every mainstream Reformed exegete” What does this mean? Have you considered that you have not read every “mainstream Reformed exegete” let alone every Reformed exegete? Also, this excludes every Lutheran exegete.
@284- Somewhere earlier in this discussion someone said that Rick Warren is a Calvinist. That is silly as he is completely Semi-Pelagian using the golf analogy of the “Mulligan”. If Rick Warren, a supposed Calvinist, can fall into Pelagianism along with the vast majority of American Evangelicals, can not Rome also fall into Semi-Pelagianism? At the root is an obscured distinction between the Law and the Gospel. There are only two religions, the religion of “do” and the religion of “done for you”. If our works had anything to do with our justification before God how would such great sinners as David, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Samson ever hope to stand before God on judgment day unless they were justified before God by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. You don’t see any of these men in the scripture whipping themselves or starving themselves to make up for their sins as the monks do. They simply repented and belived the good news that one day God would somehow save them and atone for their sins just as He had promised in the beginning (Gen 3:15).
I realize now that the statement I made in the following exchange:
Jason #243: “Good works are a FRUIT of faith.”
Johannes #279: “Correct, but I add that they are a necessary fruit.”
Jason #280: “Right, because one who has faith can’t help but do good works for their neighbor.”
lent itself to be interpreted in two diametrically opposed ways, and Jason, without any fault on his part, understood it in the way I did not mean. This is because “necessary” can mean either “needed, required” or “unavoidably present”. I meant the former and Jason meant the latter.
So what I mean is that, for us to remain in salvation, we NEED to perform good works. Which will be a fruit of faith (or more accurately, of the grace of the Holy Spirit that we received through faith), but not a fruit that will come about automatically. We have to willfully collaborate with God who works. So I agree with Mateo #284.
To Jason #292
Ephesians 2:8-10 (English Standard Version)
8For(A) by grace you HAVE BEEN saved
“we HAVE BEEN saved” means what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says when it describes the effects of Baptism: Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and coheir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.
It does NOT mean guaranteed final perseverance. You retain your free will and must use it to cooperate with God, and can also misuse it to reject God’s love.
(B) through FAITH. And this is(C) NOT your own doing;(D) it is the GIFT of God, 9(E) NOT a result of WORKS,(F) so that NO ONE MAY BOAST.
This is most obvious.
10For(G) we are HIS workmanship,(H) CREATED IN Christ Jesus
This is exactly what I quoted above from the Catechism.
(I) FOR GOOD WORKS,(J) which GOD PREPARED beforehand,(K) that we should walk in them.
This means that God
a. lays out the opportunities to perform the good works, and
b. provides us with his assistance to perform them.
But the good works will NOT come about automatically! God’s assistance does NOT make us puppets! We HAVE to willfully collaborate with God who works!
Jason,
All of the passages you quoted above, with all of the particular words and phrased highlighted by caps lock, can be and are affirmed by Catholic teaching. The conclusion that you draw, namely the good works are a fruit of faith, is also affirmed by Catholic teaching. We do not believe that we are capable of good works without faith in God and the grace He gives us.
Jason:
That false dichotomy is the basic problem with your theology. The truth is “both-and,” not “either-or.”
Yes, God does for us what we cannot do for ourselves. But what he does for us is, precisely, to enable us to do what needs to be done.
Here is my thought on this, for what its worth.
Consider the case of infant Baptism. Is it possible for the infant to resist the grace received by the Sacrament of Baptism? No, but then again, the infant cannot exercise his free will to resist the grace being given. Only after the infant reaches the age of reason does the possibility exist for rejecting the grace received in the Sacrament of Baptism. In the case of infant baptism, the sacramental grace of Baptism is irresistible, and any prevenient grace that was received by the infant before the Sacrament of Baptism was administered would also be irresistible.
Now consider the case of a non-baptized adult. The Catholic Church, because she rejects Semi-Pelagianism, teaches that the non-baptized adult could not even desire to become a Christian without first receiving what you have called “prevenient grace”. In the case of the non-baptized adult, you raise an interesting question.
What you have called prevenient grace is also sometimes called healing grace. In order for a man that is born in original sin to make the choice to become a Christian, he needs to receive healing grace before he can make an unimpeded choice to become a Christian. In my opinion, the healing graces received by the pre-catechumen would be actual graces that liberates the will from some of the effects of the Fall. After receiving healing grace, the choice that one ultimately makes about whether to accept or reject Christianity is a choice made without coercion of the will. IOW, healing graces are given as unmerited gifts by God, but because they are gifts freely given, the possibility of rejection of the gifts is a real possibility.
Calvinism’s “irresistible grace”, it seems to me, teaches that the non-baptized adult is coerced by irresistible grace to become a Christian. Irresistible grace doesn’t liberate man’s will from the detrimental effects of the Fall, instead, “irresistible grace” destroys man’s will and makes him become a Christian without any freely made choice on his part.
One more point about healing grace. Consider that in both the Rite of Baptism of Infants and the Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults that there are prayers of exorcism within these Rites (prayers of exorcism that are always said before the Sacrament of Baptism is given to either infants or adults). In my opinion, the prayers of exorcism that are in these Rites exist to give healing graces to the person that is suffering from wounds brought about by the Fall.
mateo:
I agree with almost everything you say. But it needs a qualification: given the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, the concept of prevenient healing grace is not applicable to the Mother of God. I’m inclined to say that, although she always had the liberty of the blessed, and needed to undergo spiritual growth, there came a point at which her being kecharitomene rendered her unable to sin. After all, the tradition of both East and the West have held that she was sinless, and it would be a rather remarkable coincidence if she just happened never to sin.
Best,
Mike
Johannes (re:#288 and 289),
I didn’t write comment #283 or #285. You must be referring to #287.
I don’t deny that good works are a “fruit of faith.” I deny that they are *only* a fruit of faith, as Jason asserts. I deny that works play no role in our justification, because Jesus, Paul, and James deny it, in their many statements on the absolute necessity of good works, in one’s Christian life, in order for one to stand justified before God. Good works are a fruit of faith. They help to distinguish a living faith from a dead one. However, they are not *only* a fruit of faith, in that they play no part in our final justification, as Jason wants to say.
I’ll have to think more on your statement that “Surely a non-Christian can perform objectively good works.” It would depend on in what sense you meant “non-Christian” and “objectively good works.” It would seem, from the Biblical witness, that for the non-Christian who hears the truth about Christ, presented clearly, and who correctly understands, and yet defiantly rejects that truth– for such a person, none of his/her works are regarded as “objectively good works” by God.
Now, there may well be many non-Christians who don’t fit the above description. We must share the truth about Christ with them, if they have not already heard it and/or rightly understood it. If we are utterly unable to share the truth about Christ with them (either directly or by funding missionaries), then we must simply pray and entrust them to the mercy of God. However, I think it is best not to simply state that non-Christians can do “objectively good works” and leave it at that. Important qualifications are needed. Which non-Christians? All? Some? In which contexts?
Jason,
I don’t want to ignore anything that you wrote to me in your reply. Other people, though, have addressed your reply, before I could, and have done so well. I will look forward to seeing your replies to Sean, Johannes, David, and Michael. On your assertion that the Catholic Church is “semi-Pelagian,” please see the following article, which directly addresses that very subject: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/is-the-catholic-church-semi-pelagian/
As David Pell stated in #295, all of the verses which you quoted above (in #292)are completely compatible with Catholic teaching. In fact, as part of the Bible, the verses which you quoted help to *form* Catholic teaching, because God, working through witness of the apostles, used the Catholic Church to write and to canonize the Bible.
Humanly speaking, Catholics wrote the New Testament– which is why it cannot be rightly understood, as a whole, outside of Sacred Tradition. Protestants have numerous, widely varying interpretations of New Testament texts (including the ones you quoted), because they are trying to read and understand the NT, outside of the Sacred Tradition in which it was composed.
I’ll provide a few examples. Strong, Puritanesque, Calvinist churches exhort their members to carefully examine their lives, for good works and other signs of salvation, and to do so periodically. Lutherans, and less “Puritanesque” Calvinists, such as Michael Horton, are more apt to tell Christians not to look so much at their works, but to look at the Cross and to Christ’s work there, for confidence in their salvation.
Jason, I have been a member of Protestant churches which, respectively, teach those two different views of works in the Christian life, and how to look at (or *not* look so much at) one’s works, in order to ascertain one’s calling and election. The difference is fairly great, in regard to how one thinks about and lives the Christian life. How is one to know which view of works is “Biblical”– the more Puritan-like one, more given to introspection (which accords with what I was taught in my Reformed Baptist church) or the Lutheran, or less Puritan-like Calvinist, view? Which view is the “Biblical” one, and how does one know? The reason that I ask is, both Lutherans and Puritans claim(ed) that sound Biblical exegesis brought them to their greatly differing views of works.
Again, I’m not meaning to ignore anything that you wrote to me in #292. Other people have answered most of your statements and questions therein. I hope that you will engage with those people. As for the teaching of mainstream Reformed exegetes on the second chapter of James, in regard to justification, I specifically never claimed to have read every Reformed exegete on the subject? Who has read every one? Who has such time to do so? I said that every mainstream Reformed exegete *that I have ever read or heard* takes the reading of James on justification that you claim to be “silly,” and which no right-thinking exegete should supposedly take. I haven’t read every exegete on the subject. However, the question stands. How do you know that the Lutherans are right? The Puritans disagreed with them fairly strongly on works and other issues.
Christopher, yes, I was referring to your #287. Funny thing is I mistakenly referred to two comments written by me. Either some comment renumbering goes on while comments are still “waiting for moderation” or (more likely) I have to be more careful typing numbers.
Re my statement:
Clearly by “good works” we mean “works of charity whereby the faithful grows in God’s love”. Surely a non-Christian can perform objectively good works.
The second sentence turned out as ambiguous as it could get, but I did NOT intend “objectively good works” to mean the same as “good works” in the first sentence. By “objectively” I meant regarding the act itself as seen from another human, independently from whether those works will be rewarded by God or not. Which is such a no brainer I shouldn’t have even mentioned it. Obviously a Buddhist can do works of mercy (visit a sick, etc.)
So I did not say anything about whether by performing those works this Buddhist grows in God’s love and consequently augments the eternal reward waiting for him. Obviously in the first case you mention (truth heard, understood and rejected) he definitely does not, exactly as you say. The second case (your last paragraph) is the topic of “invincible ignorance”, “implicit desire”, etc. whose treatment in my view would be off-topic in this thread.
I agree. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary, at her birth, was preserved from the stain of Original Sin by special grace from God. I can’t imagine why she would need the healing graces that men born in a state of original sin need to receive before they can give their “yes” to God.
Adam and Eve also didn’t need healing graces before the Fall. Although Adam and Eve weren’t conceived without the stain of original sin, they were created without the stain of original sin. Adam and Eve, before the Fall, also possessed the preternatural gift of lack concupiscence. In Adam’s sanctified state in Original Justice, Adam could exercise his free will to be either obedient or disobedient to God. Adam freely chose disobedience and brought death into God’s creation. Adam’s disobedience brought about a certain bondage in the Kingdom of Darkness for himself and his progeny (Mary and Jesus excepted). Jesus came to free men from that bondage, and that is why some people needed exorcism by Jesus before they could receive the Gospel.
Interesting thought. Mary, like Adam and Eve, was also given the preternatural gift of lack of concupiscence. So unlike us, Mary never had to struggle with concupiscence. Which is not to say that Mary didn’t have to live a life of faith and cooperate with extraordinary graces given to her so that she could manifest the obedience of faith. Nor does Mary’s lack of concupiscence mean that Mary never had to suffer from the temptations of the devil, since Jesus also was born with the lack of concupiscence, and Jesus suffered the temptations of the Devil.
I think that Mary continually cooperated with the extraordinary graces that she received throughout her life, and her ever increasing sanctity brought her into an ever increasing union of love with God that made it more and more difficult to for her to say “no” to God. I suppose that I am inclined to think that Mary could have made a choice against God at anytime in her life. During her life on earth, IMO, it was Mary’s continuous and perfect “yes” to the will of God that makes her the model of Christian perfection.
Johannes / Christopher – Yes comments can get re-numbered if a comment gets approved out of chronological order. Sorry for the confusion.
Johannes (re:#301)
I understand and affirm what you wrote, on all counts.
@296- What remains to be done?
@all- If Mary was immaculately concieved and sinless why then does she call Jesus her saviour? Why does Revelation 12 say she experienced pain in giving birth to Jesus? If she was without sin then she should not have experienced pain in giving birth to Jesus? If Mary can be immaculately concieved then why is not everyone immaculately conceived? It is not necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived for Jesus to be immaculately conceived because sin is passed through the father and not the mother. Jesus was concieved by the Holy Spirit so He had no sin.
Jason,
Mary’s immaculate conception does not mean that she was without need of Christ. The Catechism said that she was preserved from the stain of original sin through a special act of grace at the moment of conception. This is why she can still call Jesus her savior.
Your point about having pain just doesn’t make any sense. Jesus was without sin in an even more fundamental way than Mary was, yet He experienced pain in this world, much more pain (I would assume) than when Mary gave birth to Him.
It doesn’t seem to me like you have taken the time to really learn and understand our positions. You’ve shown this already with justification and now with Mariology. You have been throwing out a bunch of one-liners as if they’re going to catch us off guard, or show us how our positions can’t account for them, when anyone who has actually looked at our positions can see that your one-liners sound like the oversimplifications of a fundamentalist who is just trying to write as off without having to deal with reality more than someone who is really looking to understand what we believe before trying to refute it. That’s just my two cents. I’ll let someone else answer the “question” about the “necessity” of the Immaculate Conception.
Jason,
Where in Scripture does it say that “sin is passed through the father and not the mother”?
Jason, when I began exploring many of these Catholic teachings, I went directly to the sources. Concerning St. Mary’s Immaculate Conception, for example, I read Pope Pius the IX’s “Ineffabilis Deus” in which you’ll find these words:
With the Internet, our ability to research and verify info is limitless! peace. herbert
1) If Mary was immaculately conceived and sinless why then does she call Jesus her saviour?
From Pius IX’s Bull Ineffabilis, 1854: “the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin”.
From John Paul II’s audience on June 12, 1996 at https://www.ewtn.com/library/papaldoc/jp2bvm23.htm
[Start of quote]
The Virgin Mother received the singular grace of being immaculately conceived “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race”, that is, of his universal redeeming action.
The text of the dogmatic definition does not expressly declare that Mary was redeemed, but the same Bull Ineffabilis states elsewhere that “she was redeemed in the most sublime way”. This is the extraordinary truth: Christ was the redeemer of his Mother and carried out his redemptive action in her “in the most perfect way” (Pius XII’s Fulgens corona, 1953), from the first moment of her existence. The Second Vatican Council proclaimed that the Church “admires and exalts in Mary the most excellent fruit of the Redemption” (Sacrosanctum Concilium, n. 103).
[End of quote]
2. Why does Revelation 12 say she experienced pain in giving birth to Jesus?
First, the woman in Rev 12 is not only Mary, but also, and perhaps primarily, the community of the faithful. There is no contradiction in this, because Mary is “type” of the Church, not in the sense of the figures or types of the Old Testament, but in the sense that in her the spiritual reality proclaimed and represented is completely fulfilled. (https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM58.HTM)
Secondly, the “giving birth” refers not the physical birth of Jesus, but to the birth of the “total Christ” (Jesus + the Church). That happened throuth the Cross, at the foot of which Mary experienced undescribable pain.
3. If she was without sin then she should not have experienced pain in giving birth to Jesus?
First, the “every stain of original sin” from which she was preserved free means original sin plus its spiritual consequences, the gravest of which is separation from God. It does not include the temporal consequences of sin: suffering, illness, death.
[start of digression]
BTW, it does not even include concupiscence. John Paul II said as much in the June 12, 1996 audience linked above:
“Pius IX’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not explicitly include the freedom from concupiscence. Nevertheless, Mary’s complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which, according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS 1515).”
So, the belief that Mary was preserved free from concupiscence is not “de fide” (though it is a generally accepted doctrine). What is “de fide” is, in addition to the Immaculate Conception, that by the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.
[end of digression]
Back to the temporal consequences of sin, Mary’s (hypothetical) preservation from them is not even generally accepted doctrine. John Paul II said as much in the audience of June 25, 1997 at https://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/JP2BVM53.HTM
“It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality.”
Therefore, if Mary was not preserved from death she was not preserved from suffering and illness either. The fact that she did not experience pain in giving birth to Jesus was because Jesus’ birth was miraculous and virginal just as his conception was.
4. If Mary can be immaculately conceived then why is not everyone immaculately conceived?
Because:
a. Only Mary has the mission of being the Mother of God’s Son.
b. Mary is the woman spoken of in Gen 3:15, so that only in her those words had to be fully realized:
“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers.”
If at a given moment the Blessed Virgin Mary had been left without divine grace, because she was defiled at her conception by the hereditary stain of sin, between her and the serpent there would no longer have been—at least during this period of time, however brief—that eternal enmity spoken of in the earliest tradition up to the definition of the Immaculate Conception, but rather a certain enslavement. The absolute hostility put between the woman and the devil thus demands in Mary the Immaculate Conception, that is, a total absence of sin, from the very beginning of her life.
5. “It is not necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived for Jesus to be immaculately conceived because sin is passed through the father and not the mother.”
Several points here:
a. Mary was conceived normally. She was “preemptively redeemed” at the time of her conception, and that is what her “Immaculate Conception” is about.
b. Jesus was conceived virginally. He was completely holy and without sin, and would have still been so if:
– He had been conceived normally, and/or
– Mary had not been preemptively redeemed.
c. Sin is neither passed only through the father nor only through the mother. After Adam’s and Eve’s fault, we are all born in sin.
6. “Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit so He had no sin.”
As I said above, Jesus would have had no sin even if He had been conceived in the usual way.
A quick question for clarification. Is it not possible that Mary was indeed immaculately conceived, but either A) didn’t know it or B) knew that God was her savior somehow anyway. In either case, Mary would have called God her savior, even if she didn’t understand the exact way in which she was saved. Imagine how proud it would have been for her to think, “Golly, I can’t remember ever sinning in my life, so I guess I don’t need to call God my savior!” Also, consider the society in which she grew up. She was raised on the Old Testament, which is filled with cries to God for salvation from all sorts of things (Israel’s enemies, sin, etc.).
I think the really good question that Jason brings up is… if Mary could be immaculately conceived, why not allow all of humanity to be free of original sin at birth? I would point out, however, that this is a question all Christians must deal with. Why must we all be born with original sin? It seems unfair sometimes.
I’m not sure I know the answer, but I suspect that, if Catholicism is true, than God worked things out so that the maximum number of persons would come to Him in the end. In other words, God did not withhold an advantage that would’ve resulted in more eternal good. It may be difficult to understand in what way this works out, but there are too many variables for us to claim we KNOW how God should have done it.
Jason,
One thing that I find interesting about your comments is that when your questions are answered at great length, you will either reply with one or two sentences and a blitz of quoted Scripture, or you will go on to a completely different subject, as you have here with the Immaculate Conception. Why is that? If people are going to take the time to interact with you at length, would it not be helpful for the conversation if you tried to respond in kind?
Answering with one or two sentences of your own, and a torrent of Scripture, isn’t always helpful, not because we don’t value Scripture here, but because you are acting as though your interpretation of Scripture is self-evident (it is not). As for going to a different subject, *instead of* really interacting with our arguments, that is obviously problematic for the discussion (unless you simply don’t have an argument with which to respond).
On the Immaculate Conception, contrary to what many Protestants think, this doctrine was not added to the deposit of faith as a medieval corruption. The early Church held to it. For that matter, two of Reformed Protestantism’s greatest heroes, St. Augustine and Martin Luther, both held that Mary was preserved from any stain of sin, not virtue of being divine, but as a special gift of God. Luther held to this teaching even after leaving the Catholic Church. There is documentation here: https://theblackcordelias.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/martin-luther-on-the-immaculate-conception-of-mary/ I have to wonder, why is it that not one of the various denominations named after Luther holds to what the man himself believed about Mary?
I meant to write, in regard to Mary, “not *by* virtue of being divine…”
TDC (re:#310),
Mary was still a human being, not divine, as was Jesus, so for that very reason, Mary’s preservation by God from any stain of original sin *entails* that He was her Savior. If she had been divine, as was her Son, she obviously would not have needed a Savior. God preserved her from original sin and enabled her to live a sinless life as a non-divine human being. It is in that sense that He was her Savior.
TDC,
Sorry, I should have answered your (and Jason’s) other question in the last comment. I got distracted; mea culpa. :-)
The Catholic Church’s overall teaching on Mary (not solely the Immaculate Conception, by any means, but including it) came as a result of the Church’s reflection on the implications of a human woman bearing the very God-man in her womb. I’m not sure of all of the intricacies of reasoning involved here, but the Church teaches that Mary was simply granted a grace, a gift, from God that no other non-divine human being ever has been, or ever will be, granted. As to why God granted that grace to her and not to the rest of the human race, I’m sure that some of the more formally trained theological minds here can answer that question for you better than I can, but I would think that Mary’s Immaculate Conception had something to do with her being the woman who bear the Incarnation in her womb.
the woman who *would* bear the Incarnation in her womb, that is…
Gentlemen:
I’m afraid I’m going to have to plead guilty to introducing, with my reply to mateo (#298), the topic of the Immaculate Conception into this thread. In my experience, once that doctrine is mentioned in a theological discussion, it becomes almost impossible to discuss much else. And so this thread has gone somewhat off track.
But not entirely so. The question has been raised why God didn’t do for all of us what he did for Mary with the IC. The correct answer, though necessarily unable to dispel the mystery of God’s election, reveals a truth pertinent to discussing the concept of election.
Part of the answer is given in the tradition cited by Pius IX in Ineffabilis Deus. It was clearly “fitting” for God to become one of us by assuming human nature from a “pure vessel” who had obeyed him freely, to be sure, but almost as second nature. The first Eve, gifted with grace, heeded the devil and disobeyed God without really understanding the consequences, thus introducing sin into the world. The sin was all the more heinous because it was done against grace and without impulsion from concupiscence. The second Eve, gifted with grace, obeyed God speaking to her through the angel Gabriel without really understanding the mechanism or reality of the Incarnation, thus introducing the Savior into the world. Like all grace, the grace making that possible was consequent on the merits of a Passion that had not yet occurred in the flesh. Yet it was a uniquely special grace, befitting its uniquely special purpose, which was to save not just Mary but to bring the Savior himself into his world so that he could take it back from the Evil One.
One cannot say, however, that it would have been equally fitting for God to have done the same for every human person. People sometimes ask, in a spirit of skepticism, why the God of miracles doesn’t do for everybody the sort of miracles that everybody can recognize as such. Some go even further, asking why God doesn’t miraculously intervene to prevent the suffering of the innocent, who die along with the guilty and often suffer more than the guilty. The answer in both cases is roughly the same. God cannot regularly do the sort of miracles people usually want without destroying the natural order he has created. Those sorts of miracles are necessarily extraordinary. In the order of grace and sin, God could not regularly exempt people from “original” sin, i.e. our loss of grace consequent on the first sin, without destroying the supernatural order. Indeed, in the actual economy, the inheritance of original sin seems to admit only one exception, unlike the natural order, which seems somewhat more plastic. That, I believe, is the main reason why it would not have been fitting for God to ensure that none of us inherit original sin or its effects.
Now if it be asked why the necessary workings of the supernatural order are like that, I have no answer and neither does anybody else. But that is not a special difficulty raised by the doctrine of the IC. The revealed truths of faith are mysterious precisely inasmuch as what makes them intelligible can never explain why they had to be as they are rather than some other logically possible way. If it be objected that such a response is a craven flight into mystery, I point to the situation of contemporary physics. Most people are incapable of understanding much of physics as that discipline stands today; it leaves us with a number of paradoxes and mysteries, and there’s no guarantee that all of them will be resolved in a way that we would find intellectually tidy and satisfying. If that’s true of science, then a fortiori it’s true of revealed theology.
I’ve said that the answer to the original question would shed light on the mystery of election. The light it sheds, I believe, is this: by exemplifying in her person, to a pre-eminent degree, what each and every Christian is called to be, Mary helps us to become what we are. Because of her IC, she was at her conception what each of us is at the moment after our baptisms. Her being Theotokos, “God-bearer,” both physically and in how she helped raise Jesus, is to a pre-eminent degree what each Christian disciple is called to be for the world. Her Assumption into heaven signifies that she already enjoys that fullness of redemption each of the saved will have on “the Last Day.” In virtue of being a “real symbol” of the realities of grace meant for many, she helps by divine grace to bring them about for many. Being of “the elect,” then, means having Mary as our mother.
It also means, I believe, that many receive the grace of final perseverance well before death. The extension of the phrase ‘the elect’ is just that. And for the reasons already stated, Mary is the chief instance of that.
Best,
Mike
@Christopher Lake:
Tangentially, I want to express my gratitude towards those who, like Johannes, make clear and extensive replies to Jason’s and others’ questions. I am a Catholic convert, of about 15 years ago, but spent the first 27 years of my life in total innocence of any knowledge of Christianity; and the next 25 as a Protestant, most of that as a Calvinist. I have been learning a tremendous amount by reading the responses of persons like Johannes.
So your responses to your interlocutor may be helping others, without your knowing it; keep it up and thanks! :-)
jj
Jason,
In that case, I sincerely apologize for saying that you were changing the subject to the Immaculate Conception. I missed Michael’s introduction of the subject into the discussion. Mea culpa.
John,
I echo your gratitude for others’ comments , with a trajectory through life that has been quite, quite similar to yours! :-)
@306- “Even before the terms “original sin” and “immaculate conception” had been defined, early passages imply the doctrines. Many works mention that Mary gave birth to Jesus without pain. But pain in childbearing is part of the penalty of original sin (Gen. 3:16). Thus, Mary could not have been under that penalty. By God’s grace, she was immaculate in anticipation of her Son’s redemptive death on the cross. The Church therefore describes Mary as “the most excellent fruit of redemption” (CCC 508).”https://www.catholic.com/library/Mary_Full_of_Grace.asp
@307- That is the right question to ask. The Bible never talks of the world falling under the sin of Eve, only the sin of Adam. We never see in scripture where Eve’s sin is imputed. Also, the fall did not happen when Eve sinned, but Adam. See the first 5 chapters of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
Romans 5:12 (NASB)
12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—
Also, we know that we get our soul from our parents.
Hebrews 7:9–10 (NASB)
9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes,
10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.
@308- I don’t see how that proves anything.
@309 and 306- I realize it is also allegory for the church the the persecution we have endured throughout the ages but it clearly is using Mary as an illustration for this. I see your point that if Mary were sinless it would not mean that she would not experience pain in childbirth but there is a Catholic Tradition that she did not experience pain in giving birth and if Catholic tradition is equal with scripture then it should square up perfectly but it just simply does not.
@310
“I think the really good question that Jason brings up is… if Mary could be immaculately conceived, why not allow all of humanity to be free of original sin at birth? I would point out, however, that this is a question all Christians must deal with. Why must we all be born with original sin? It seems unfair sometimes.”
Look up Traducianism and it will all make sense. Would you rather have a God who is both Just and Mercifull or one that is fair and just? Consider this, if God were both fair and just then we would all have to go to hell. Praise be to God that He is so mercifull that He send His only begotten Son to die for the sins of the whole world so that all who trust in Him will not perish but have life everlasting!
@311- It’s because I have limited time that I give short answers. I don’t understand why you guys can’t give shorter answers. And yes I know the reformers held to the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary. I don’t see how they could have overlooked that fact that it does not square with scripture.
@all If Mary was sinless she needs no saviour. The scriptures and reason demand this. I would also point out against the argument that she needed to be sinless to be a good mother to Jesus that she lost track of Him once and was rather worried about it. Concerning comment 318, consider any offense any of you could possibly cause me then, now, or later forgiven. I hope you all would do the same for me as I am rather blunt and we live in a place and time when people are ultra sensative.
Just out of curiosity, have the challenges I have raised helped anyone? Has it caused anyone to crack open their Bibles?
Just one more thing, you guys are all really swell. If this were an emergent blog I would have been kicked off by now! Cheers mates!
Mea culpa for my own role in taking this thread off topic. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is certainly worthy of its own thread, and I hope that CTC will open up that topic for discussion someday. Your point above about Eve falling from a state of grace is related to the CTC thread “Pelagian Westminister?”
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/pelagian-westminister/
There are several things I would like to respond to in your last post, but I think it would be best to do that in a different thread. Your statement, “Like all grace, the grace making that possible was consequent on the merits of a Passion that had not yet occurred in the flesh”, brings up several questions for me. One, Adam and Eve were given supernatural grace before the Fall – was that grace “consequent on the merits of a Passion that had not yet occurred in the flesh”? If the Fall had not occurred, would the grace necessary for Adam and Eve to become “fully divinized” have come through the Incarnation of the Word in the terrestrial paradise? Had the Fall not occurred, would Mary still have been the vessel of the Incarnation in the terrestrial paradise? I have more questions I would like to ask you, but let us leave them unanswered for now. Perhaps you could write a “guest contribution” essay for CTC where you elucidate the problems with Calvin’s pre-Fall Pelagianism, Eve’s fall from grace, whether Mary was always intended by God to have a unique role as the Mother of God with or without the Fall, etc.
That said, I want to thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts in the comment boxes at CTC. I have been reading your postings on the web for a long time now, and have always been impressed by both your orthodoxy and your writing skills.
For myself, I value the opportunity CTC provides for me to make my own combox posts to CTC, as doing this makes me articulate my own thoughts more fully. For example, in this thread, Father Kimel brought up a question about irresistible grace; i.e. “Does Trent leave open the question whether God gives prevenient grace in such a way that it cannot be ultimately and effectually resisted?”
Fr. Kimel is asking a subtle question here, and I am not sure that I really answered it very well. Now that I think about his question again, I believe that the “prevenient grace” or “healing grace” that is given to the pre-catechumen must be irresistible in some sense. The fallen man is in absolute need of healing grace in order to make a “yes” to God’s offer of sanctifying grace received through the Sacrament of Baptism. If I don’t affirm that prevenient grace is irresistible, I don’t see how I can avoid the charge of being semi-Pelagian.
I see more clearly now that my problem with Calvinism’s “irresistible grace” isn’t about irresistibility per se, it is about how God’s grace operates on the human will. It seems to me that implicit in Calvinism’s concept of irresistible grace is the idea that irresistible grace would coerce the fallen man to become a Christian without any real choice by the man. I am saying that prevenient grace brings about a certain healing to the fallen man which allows him to make a real choice to accept or reject the sacramental grace of baptism.
Jason,
What I shared simply provides an answer to the your question:
thanks. herbert
I enjoy responding to these types of challenges. Your comment about cracking open the Bible is revelatory of where you are coming from. My immediate response to that comment is that I don’t have any problems with what is written in the Bible. What I have a problem with are your interpretations of what is written in the Bible.
Would you please answer these questions?
1). Do you believe that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible?
2). If you aren’t making a claim of personal infallibility, then do you accept that, however remote it may seem to you at present, that some of your interpretations could be wrong?
3). Where does the Bible explicitly teach Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura?
4). If you can’t show me where the doctrine of sola scriptura is explicitly taught in the Bible, why should I accept Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine?
Direct answers to these questions would be most appreciated!
Jason #320: “If Mary was sinless she needs no saviour. The scriptures and reason demand this.”
Let’s try once again to explain the definition:
“Mary, from the first moment of her conception, … in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from every stain of original sin”.
An ordinary person is created, at the moment of conception, in a state of original sin, deprived of original holiness and justice. When that person is baptized, the merits of Jesus Christ are applied to him/her and he/she is not only purified from all sins (original and personal if there were), but also made a “partaker of the divine nature”: an adopted son/daughter of God, member of Jesus Christ and coheir with Him, and temple of the Holy Spirit.
In the case of St Mary, the (foreseen) merits of Jesus Christ were applied to her at the very moment of her conception. Or even more precisely, her soul was created with the (foreseen) merits of Jesus Christ already applied to it, as if she had already been baptized.
Is it clear that it was thanks to the merits of Jesus that St Mary was created “in righteousness and holiness” right in her conception? Is it clear that Jesus WAS her saviour?
Jason #320: “there is a Catholic Tradition that she did not experience pain in giving birth and if Catholic tradition is equal with scripture then it should square up perfectly but it just simply does not.”
Though the belief that Jesus birth was miraculous and virginal (and therefore painless) is from Tradition, it squares up perfectly with Scripture. In fact, in my view it provides the most plausible way to make sense of two otherwise puzzling points in Luke’s account of the Nativity:
1. “she gave birth to her firstborn son. 3 She wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger,” (Lk 2: 7)
Why “she” alone wrapped and laid the baby? Why didn’t Joseph help, if his wife had just gone through a normal laborious and painful birth work?
2. “So they (the shepherds) went in haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. When they saw this, they made known the message that had been told them about this child. All who heard it were amazed by what had been told them by the shepherds.” (Lk 2: 16-18)
Who were those “all who heard it”? The expression does not fit if they were just Mary and Joseph. And they could not have been the Magi because “they saw the child with Mary his mother” “on entering the house” (Mt 2:11), not in a cave with a manger. So, who else was in the cave with Mary and Joseph when the shepherds arrived?
Putting reason at the service of faith, this is in my view what happened:
“While they were in Bethlehem, the time came for Mary to have her child” (Lk 2:6). Since Joseph could not reasonably have expected, or even imagined, that Jesus’ birth was going to be miraculous and virginal just as his conception, he did what was reasonable for him to do: went to town (Bethlehem) and looked for midwives to assist Mary with her birth work. Probably he did that within his own family, i.e. people whom he could trust.
Meanwhile, Jesus’ miraculous and virginal birth took place in the cave, so that Mary had no problem handling it without any help. So when Joseph came back with the midwives, Mary was fresh and nursing Jesus as if she had not been through the slightest birth work, which in fact was the case.
And shortly afterwards, the shepherds arrived, and told the message they had been given by the angel to Mary, Joseph, and the midwives whom Joseph had fetched to assist Mary with her birth work, who probably were his relatives, and who now knew from the shepherds that the child was “a savior who is Messiah and Lord” (Lk 2:11).
Jason:
Since I read the Bible every day, I didn’t need your encouragement to “crack open” my Bible. What I’ve learned from your “challenges” is that you are unable to distinguish divine revelation from your own interpretation of that collection of writings.
Best,
Mike
@Jason:
Jason, I kind of thought this was a bit odd. Do you imagine that we don’t read the Bible? Or that we had never considered those passages you refer to? For goodness’ sake, many of us were exactly where you seem to be for many years. Shouldn’t it occur to you that we think we have better understanding of those passages than you have? I mean, we thought as you thought, then … as we believe … learned more.
For what it’s worth, I have read the Bible maybe 40 times through – the New Testament almost always in Greek, since I read Greek, the Old Testament a couple of times through in Hebrew (and Aramaic and Greek where relevant – Greek for those bits you don’t think are Scripture), but more in English. I don’t think you are going to get anywhere with those on this blog by suggesting that we just need to read and think about those passages, as though it was for the first time or something!
Sheesh! Think, man, about the sort of people you are dealing with!!
jj
Jason (320):
To give a short answer, what Mike said. In other words, you’re leaving out the key component of your belief here, which should read: “I don’t see how they could have overlooked the fact that it does not square with my interpretation of scripture.”As for Mary, you seem not to have actually read anything said above. Mary was sinless because she has a savior. It says as much in the quotation you offer in response to #306 above:
You don’t have to agree with it, but at least treat it honestly: the Catholic teaching is that Mary was immaculately conceived by a miraculous application of Christ’s redemptive work on the cross. It is because of the cross that she was sinless, Jesus was every bit her savior as He is ours.
Jason (reply 320),
Traducianism does not solve the problem. It describes the process through which God allows souls to be created (and many Christians disagree on how this works). It does not answer the question of WHY God would use that process rather than another that avoids the transmission of original sin.
My statement that it seems unfair was a little unclear. Let me clarify. It is often seen as unJUST. People sometimes argue that the fact we are all tainted through Adam’s sin is unjust. I’m not saying it is actually unjust, but that this objection of “why didn’t God save us all from original sin” applies to all Christians. Traducianism doesn’t answer the question, unless you have a good reason why God has to create in this way rather than another way.
Catholics say that Mary was saved falling into sin in the first place. That is a form of saving. You can save a person by healing them, or preventing them from being harmed in the first place. Mary did not sin, but was saved by being prevented from falling to original sin. You may not agree with this, but it does not go against reason.
mateo (#322):
Addressing me, you wrote:
I don’t know the answers to any of your questions. I haven’t even thought much about them. That’s because any answer would be purely speculative and a matter of opinion. In general, I am far less interested in theological opinions, even my own, than in understanding and defending what the Church teaches definitively. That’s more than enough work for me.
You also wrote:
I agree with all that. I would add only that one bit of evidence for your conclusion is the traditional belief that baptized infants who die before reaching the age of reason, and thus before becoming capable of freely choosing to sin, go straight to heaven.
Best,
Mike
Jason #320: “there is a Catholic Tradition that she did not experience pain in giving birth and if Catholic tradition is equal with scripture then it should square up perfectly but it just simply does not.”
When I replied to this in #326, I forgot to mention that there is a MUCH more direct, less speculative way in which the Catholic belief that Jesus’ birth was miraculous and virginal squares up perfectly with Scripture. It’s in Psalm 22, the one Jesus was reciting when on the cross. First half of verse 9 (10 in NAB), according to 4 translations to clear any doubt:
NAB: Yet You drew me forth from the womb,
NAS: Yet You are He who brought me forth from the womb;
NIV: Yet You brought me out of the womb;
ESV: Yet You are He who took me from the womb;
Does this square up with an ordinary birth? Would a person that was born in an ordinary, natural way say to God “Yet You are He who took me from the womb”? Doesn’t it give a clue, and a really strong one, that Jesus’ birth involved a special intervention of God?
Fr. Kimel is asking a subtle question here, and I am not sure that I really answered it very well. Now that I think about his question again, I believe that the “prevenient grace” or “healing grace” that is given to the pre-catechumen must be irresistible in some sense. The fallen man is in absolute need of healing grace in order to make a “yes” to God’s offer of sanctifying grace received through the Sacrament of Baptism. If I don’t affirm that prevenient grace is irresistible, I don’t see how I can avoid the charge of being semi-Pelagian.
I don’t know how subtle my question was, but it is certainly one with which I continue to wrestle. The heresy of “semi-Pelagianism” is often invoked in Catholic/Protestant discussions, but unlike the parent heresy of Pelagianism, I find it difficult to precisely state the alleged heresy, particularly in light of the Eastern teaching on synergism. The East never received the Second Synod of Orange and continues to assert an understanding of grace and human freedom that many Augustinians, whether Catholic, Reformed, or Lutheran, would judge as “semi-Pelagian”; yet the Catholic Church has never, at least to my knowledge, accused the Orthodox Church as being guilty of “semi-Pelagianism.” So what is the real heresy? How and where does it manifest itself in preaching and prayer?
My suspicion is that semi-Pelagianism is tied up with various Augustinian construals of absolute or limited predestination–hence the strong Reformed condemnation of it. But as one respected Catholic theolgian, Henri Rondet, has noted, the past 1500 years must be seen as a purification of the Augustinian contribution to the Latin tradition. Today the preachers and theologians of the Catholic Church insist that God truly desires the eternal salvation of human being and provides ample and sufficient grace to every human being to turn to him in faith and repentance. If this is so, it is hard, at least for me, to defend the irresistibility of prevenient grace, particularly in light of the passage from Trent, cited above, which seems to state that man retains the freedom to reject prevenient grace. An irresistible grace that can be resisted can hardly be described as irresistible. Some other language is needed.
I know that this website is principally concerned with Reformed/Catholic discussion, but it would be wonderful, and helpful, to have a Catholic/Orthodox discussion on synergism and semi-Pelagianism. Is the East “semi-Pelagian”? And if it is, is that a bad thing and why?
I am not sure that one can assert that Dogma of the Immaculate Conception teaches definitively that Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized.”
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception is this: “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
It seems to me that if Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized”, then she was born a Catholic, and she was never a Jew.
The dogma of the Immaculate Conception definitively teaches that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Which doesn’t necessarily mean that Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized”; the dogma may only mean that she was born without the stain of original sin, just as Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were without the stain of original sin.
Is the state of grace possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall greater than, less than, or equal to the state of grace possessed by the person who has just received the graces of the Sacrament of Baptism? From what I have been taught, the state of grace of the person that has just been baptized is a higher order of grace than that possessed by Adam and Eve before the Fall. Which makes sense to me, because the baptized person is born into a created reality where the Word has become flesh, whereas Adam and Eve were dwelling in a created reality where the Word had not become flesh. The Incarnation is union of uncreated divinity with created reality, and it is through union of the Word and the flesh that the created reality is elevated to a higher state of being.
Jason re: you’re #320 particularly your response to Christopher Lake
along with other thoughts applicable to that thread of the conversation.
You’ve been the only vocal Protestant in the room for much of the last week. Good job hanging in there! And everyone here recognizes you can respond adequately to 8 separate replies to each comment you post.
In my opinion you would fair better if you didn’t try to respond to everything. It is acceptable to say “I’ll get back to you on that” or even “I just don’t have time to address that right now.” Then focus on one or two particular points and make your best response. By responding to everything you keep the comments snowballing and don’t make any progress in the conversation. And the result is that you get another round of “piling on” from commentators on every post you write.
As for the length of the Catholic Responses you’ll have to get used to that if you really want to dialogue with Catholics. One aspect of this phenomena is that within historical Christianity itself that although the straight facts are simple, the explanations and implications are quite deep. Another aspect is in the relationship to Protestantism (in general) and the gulf that divides us; in order to have a chance of avoiding miscommunication and actually making a Catholic understanding make sense in a Protestant perspective a lot of foundation needs to be laid.
In my observation the style of debate the typifies Protestant interactions with Catholicism is actually designed to use this exact phenomena to the Protestant advantage. What key thinkers here at C2C have done is establish a forum that directly confronts and disables that tactic. This is WHY the tactic of argumentation you have probably had some success with other places is failing you here.
The typical Protestant style relies on 3 basic elements. 1st scripture with the forced assumption of perpescuity – that the meaning is obvious a 2nd Ignoring nuance or complexity in the Catholic Position (basically creating strawmen) and/or leveling “heavy duty” accusations (much easier to charge “Pallagianism” than to defend against the charge) 3rd the shot-gun approach (or the juggling approach) which is bringing up or tossing into the discussion additional issues diffusing the focus of the debate. A Protestant reasonably adept at these tactics can with relatively little effort on their part make the Catholic do a lot of work on defense. To these techniques the better educated and more skilled will add references to Protestant Theologians that they can be assure the Catholic has never read and use of unnecessarily arcane or overly technical language.
Fundamentally this approach relies heavily on two basic facts about the opposition. 1) the explanations of Catholic positions are going to be fairly long (especially when arising from an accusation of being “unbibilical” or heretical) and 2) Catholics aren’t going to to know Chapter and verse for 20 prooftexts of the Catholic position off the top of their head. The Protestant can then “shoot fish in a barrel” by raising objections to this or that part of the Catholic explanation or leveling new charges at intermediate points.
I will readily admit that this style is often very effective in some ways. It may win a number of converts from those easily buffaloed and poorly informed. Frequently it forces Catholics out of the conversation and lets the Protestant feel he has ‘won’ and reassures bystanding Protestants of the superiority of their theology. Occasionally a Catholic may seriously attempt to engage in debate but will find himself continually working his tail off to reply to an onslaught of accusations and questions while the Protestant does very little work actually defending his assumptions.
So Jason, what you are running into here at C2C is the effective Catholic response to the typical Protestant driven dialogue which is to not submit to the 1st tactic of Protestant debate – the assumed Perspecuity of Scripture combined with a body of Catholics who DO know scripture very well, and who can and will spot and point out a strawman and will brush aside or ignore extraneous accusations like you
from your #292
Basically, this is a different arena from where the typical Protestant Style works.
Jason, Re: A question or two you asked in #292
We have to step out of the Protestant world view in a couple of ways. First is is certainly possible for individuals and Pastors and Priests and even Bishops to fall into error and it unfortunately happens all the time. It is even possible for groups of people to fall into error together or follow a Bishop or a Theologian into error (you might argue the Jesuits or the Charismatics, or the SSPX etc. etc.). So Fr. Bob (on his own apart from the whole Church) is no more infallible than Rick Warren, BUT anyone can compare what Fr. Bob, or the Jesuits or the Charismatics or the SSPX teaches to what the Church Teaches and can determine if it is consistent and in accord with the Catholic Faith. What standard do you have for determining that Rick Warren is or is not a Calvinist or that he is or is not a heretic?
In the Protestant world of Church splits and 11 different Presbyterian groups in the USA alone you can be forgiven for thinking it easy for a “whole Church” to go off the rails. But in the Catholic framework none of those bodies actually even meets the definition of a “Church” since they have no apostolic succession, no Bishops, no valid orders etc… I’m not saying that you (as a Protestant) should find it inconceivable that the Catholic Church could fall into an error that she herself defined as an error over 1500 years ago….. But at the very least you should try to have some perspective of what that has to actually MEAN and what would have to happen for that to occur. The Catholic Church simply doesn’t hold a 1 week convention every every 5 years and rewrite it’s “confession.”
Very bluntly what I am driving at is your implication that the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is as fickle and capricious as Mega-Church Pastors.
Of course the Catholic answer is that the Church is protected from teaching error by the Holy Spirit and you of course deny that which is why we are having this conversation. But if you want to accuse the Catholic Church of Pelagianism, make your case based on the actual teaching of the Church don’t just accuse, or allude to it, or Demand (as you did in your #232) that someone answer you unsubstantiated charge that the Catholic Church is sem-Pelegian.
As for
As you have stated it here, that is a false dichotomy. Do you read the Bible? Go to Church? Pray? Evangelize? Contribute to Charity? Vote against Abortion? Teach your Children the Faith? Sorry – but that is doing your religion.
@324
1). Do you believe that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible?
No.
2). If you aren’t making a claim of personal infallibility, then do you accept that, however remote it may seem to you at present, that some of your interpretations could be wrong?
If I can be shown from scripture and plain reason that I am wrong then I change my position which is why I became a Confessional Lutheran.
3). Where does the Bible explicitly teach Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura?
Lets first define Sola Scriptura.
Sola Scriptura – The Bible is the inerrant word of God and the only inerrant source of truth and doctrine regarding the one true God.
https://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/03/webinar-refuting-brian-mclarens-claims-about-biblical-authority.html
Download the webinar slides from above link.
Jesus proved He is God by raising from the dead. Jesus quoted scripture as authoritative and therefore anything that contradicts it must be rejected.
https://www.fightingforthefaith.com/files/F4F081208.mp3
John 17:17 (King James Version)
17Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
4). If you can’t show me where the doctrine of sola scriptura is explicitly taught in the Bible, why should I accept Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine?
See webinar slides above and listen to the following program for a full understanding of Sola Scriptura. https://www.fightingforthefaith.com/files/F4F081208.mp3
Ask yourself what Jesus said about the scriptures.
(Matthew 19:3–6),(Matthew 23:34–35),(Matthew 24:36–39),(Matthew 22:23–33),(Mark
12:27),(Matthew 15:3–9; Mark 7:10–13),(John 14:22–26),(John 17:17–20),(Matthew 28:18–20),(Luke 16:27–29),(John 5:39–40),(John 20:30–31),
“Not everything that the Lord did was written, but that which the writers
believed was sufficient for life as well as for doctrine, so we might glow with
the upright faith and works and virtue and in Christ Jesus, reach the kingdom
of heaven” – Augustine
@Mateo #334
“It seems to me that if Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized”, then she was born a Catholic, and she was never a Jew.”
Neither the Apostles nor the Jews that had been baptized by them thought that they were no longer Jews:
“When we reached Jerusalem the brothers welcomed us warmly. The next day, Paul accompanied us on a visit to James, and all the presbyters were present. He greeted them, then proceeded to tell them in detail what God had accomplished among the Gentiles through his ministry. They praised God when they heard it but said to him, “Brother, you see how many thousands of believers there are from among the Jews, and they are all zealous observers of the law.”” (Acts 21: 17:20)
“the dogma may only mean that she was born without the stain of original sin, just as Adam and Eve, before the Fall, were without the stain of original sin.”
#7 of “Fulgens Corona” (Pius XII 1953), if taken isolated, might support that view:
“Now, if at any time the Blessed Mary were destitute of Divine grace even for the briefest moment, because of contamination in her conception by the hereditary stain of sin, there would not have come between her and the serpent that perpetual enmity spoken of from earliest tradition down to the time of the solemn definition of the Immaculate Conception, but rather a certain subjection.”
However, #8 does not:
“Moreover, since the same holy Virgin is saluted “full of grace” and “blessed among women” (Luke I. 28, 24), by these words, as Catholic tradition has always interpreted, it is plainly indicated that “by this singular and solemn salutation, otherwise never heard of, it is shown that the Mother of God was the abode of all Divine graces, adorned with all the charisms of the Holy Spirit, yea, the treasury well nigh infinite and abyss inexhaustible of these charisms, so that she was never subjected to the one accursed” (Bull Ineffabilis Deus).”
https://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html
BTW, Mateo, in my humble view we are incurring in an unnecessary level of subtlety here, that may cause the discussion to lose its focus.
The important point in my comment #325 was NOT whether the state of grace in which St Mary was conceived was lower than, equal to, or higher than the state of grace in which a newly baptized infant is. The point was that she was conceived free from all stain of original sin and in a state of grace BECAUSE the (foreseen) merits of Jesus Christ were applied to her at the very moment of her conception, not a nanosecond later. Or even more precisely, BECAUSE her soul was created with the (foreseen) merits of Jesus Christ already applied to it. Thus, the point was that Jesus WAS her saviour.
@325- If your argument is that she had faith in the womb just as John the Baptist did then that makes perfect sense. One problem though, it implys that she was cleansed of sin which would mean that she was not sinless. It is absolutely consistant with a Calvinist view of baptism though.
@334- The Church is all who were saved from Adam to the last day by grace through faith. The Jews who trusted the promise of Gen 3:15 and looked forward in faith to the coming Christ (just as we look back to the cross and look forward to His return)were the OT church. That is why Paul calls the church in Romans true Israel.
@335- I am afraid that if I said I would get back to it I would forget all about it.
@337- “What standard do you have for determining that Rick Warren is or is not a Calvinist or that he is or is not a heretic?” Even you gotta admit that Rick Warren is a rageing pelagian and heretic. All you have to do is listen to him for 15 minutes.
“In the Protestant world of Church splits and 11 different Presbyterian groups in the USA alone you can be forgiven for thinking it easy for a “whole Church” to go off the rails. But in the Catholic framework none of those bodies actually even meets the definition of a “Church” since they have no apostolic succession, no Bishops, no valid orders etc… ”
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t hold up to the protestant definition of a church body either because the don’t teach salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in, for, and by Christ alone.
Re the discussion on whether prevenient grace is irresistible, to the best of my reading and understanding capabilities this passage of Trent makes it crystal clear that it is NOT.
“in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, … that is to say, from His vocation, whereby … they are called; that so they … may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it;” (VI.5)
Have not read latest post yet. Just wanted to clarify my last post. 1. As far as I know all of the reformers affirmed that there is a church within the Roman Catholic Church so I am not saying that being in the Roman Catholic Church necessarily excludes one from the body of Christ. 2. There are some protestant churches (especially many Lutheran and Anglican bodies) that affirm apostolic succession and since the reformers were catholic priests they most certainly have it.
One more point, if Mary were sinless then why was she afraid when the angel appeared to announce that she would give birth to Jesus? If she were sinless then she had absolutely nothing to fear.
To clarify 337 question and answere “1). Do you believe that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible?
No.”
I would add that I do not believe the Pope’s interpretation is infallible either, nor was Luther, only the Jesus, the Apostles, and the prophets of God are infallible in such matters. However, that does not mean that we cannot understand them clearly. I would like to point out that the church fathers disagreed on many things but to hammer out the issues they went to the scriptures.
Jason, Good to see you back. May God Bless us all abundantly in this conversation and may the Holy Spirit bring forth the fruits of Brotherly love among us – if not unity.
And my suggestion is that it might be more efficient to let some things go rather than respond with less than thorough arguments. In this forum in particular there are many participants that are more than passingly familiar with the usual Protestant arguments and proof texts.
I think you’d make more impact by picking a narrow focus and making thorough responses. Right now it looks like you are starting to run in circles.
Here’s an example. You could easily let this go, no one here is all that concerned about whether or not Rick Warren is a Calvanist or Not or whether he is a “raging pelagian.” But if you are going to respond to it – “its obvious” just isn’t worth bothering. It is obvious – TO YOU, just as the Lutheran interpretation of scripture (at least the one that you subscribe to – How many Lutheran groups are there in the USA?) is obvious – TO YOU.
Rick Warren contradicts your interpretation of scripture, that may be obvious but there are thousands and thousands of other “Bible believing Protestants” that interpret scripture the way he does and some of them even claim to be Calvanists.
By what standard do you determine than Rick Warren is a pelagian heretic?
Again, in responding quickly you waste time by opening new avenues for dispute without accomplishing anything because you raise doctrinal questions and don’t address ecclesiology at all.
All of this brings up another aspect of Protestant debate that I observe in general among Protestants not just in discussions with Catholics and that is the “ping-pong” method of debate. The discussion proceeds rapid fire with volley and response trading Bible vs. with Bible vs. and occasionally a quote from a Reformer or a prominent Pastor/Author. Perhaps because of the false notion of perspecuity to even attempt to make a longer argument is to admit your position is not obvious and therefor might be wrong on that grounds alone.
Peace
Jason (340):
Whose “protestant definition?” Yours? Presumably based on your admittedly fallible interpretation of Scripture? By what authority do you proclaim this?
This is a good starting point. We are not disagreeing that the Bible speaks with authority, we are disagreeing about particular interpretations of the Bible.
You were wrong once before, but now you are pretty sure, but not absolutely sure, that you are correct. You would be willing to change your mind again if reason could convince you. Do I have that right? You changed your position not because the Bible changed, nor did you change your position because the Bible lost its authority for you. You changed your thinking because you found other men’s interpretations of the Bible to be more reasonable to you personally. But these other men that you now follow are not making a claim of personal infallibility in their particular interpretations of the Bible. Since the Lutherans you follow make no claim that they are infallibly interpreting scripture, how do you know men you follow are the only ones correctly interpreting the Bible? There are thousands of other Protestant denominations that have serious doctrinal disagreements with confessional Lutheranism, and all these Protestants believe that they too are being scriptural and reasonable in their personal interpretations of the Bible.
How do you account for the fact that it isn’t just the Catholics and the Orthodox that disagree with certain doctrines of confessional Lutheranism, that there are also thousands upon thousands of Protestant denominations that disagree with certain doctrines of confessional Lutheranism? Did Christ really establish a Church on earth and then leave us with no way of knowing with certainty what His church is supposed to teach?
I will accept this definition of sola scriptura.
Luther’s novel doctrine of sola scriptura is making two claims here:
1). The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
There is no controversy between us here. All Catholics believe this.
2). The Bible is the ONLY “inerrant source of truth and doctrine regarding the one true God.”
It is the “ONLY” in the above statement that is controversial. Where are the scriptures that teach that the scriptures are the ONLY “source of truth and doctrine regarding the one true God”? If there are no scriptures that explicitly teach this “only” assertion of Luther’s doctrine, then the doctrine of sola scriptura is itself unscriptural in the sense that Luther’s “only” assertion is nowhere to be found in scriptures.
This is not a direct answer to my question. I asked you for the scriptures that explicitly teach that the scriptures are the “only inerrant source of truth and doctrine regarding the one true God”. Not one of the scriptures you have referenced back up Luther’s “only” claim.
I will ask you again, if you can’t show me where the Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura is explicitly taught in the Bible, why should I accept Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine? As a Protestant, could you please explain to me why should I accept a doctrine that is nowhere taught in the Bible?
To me, my point about whether or not Mary was born a Catholic goes straight to the heart of the Gospel. But it would take me quite a while to explain why I think that is so. I agree with you that having that discussion would needlessly sidetrack this thread. I have hope that CTC will someday start a thread on the Doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I would enjoy picking up this conversation with you again in the future.
A couple of points. I fully affirm the quotes you gave from Fulgens Corona and the Bull Ineffabilis Deus.
The point that Jesus is the savior of Mary is indeed important. I am saying that this idea can be defended without assuming that Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized”. IMO, assuming that Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized” is reading more into the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception than is justified by the words that proclaimed the dogma. Which is not say that as a faithful Catholic that one cannot believe that Mary was born as if she had already been baptized. My point is that the Church really has not definitively declared this to be the case, thus, one can be a faithful Catholic and either believe it or not believe it.
mateo,
According to the handy-dandy note linked at the top of every page, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a ways off, though they’ll get there. It just isn’t foundational, which is how they’re building the argument. And that isn’t to say someone won’t post a blog about it in the meantime. :)
Mateo,
I did not use the concept that Mary was born “as if she had already been baptized” to defend the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, much less to expound a personal, presumably more precise (!) version of the doctrine, but just to help people (particularly Jason) understand it. The same goes for using the expression “preemptively redeemed”.
I am not assuming that the spiritual state in which the Virgin was conceived was the EXACT same as the spiritual state a newly baptized infant is. I see those states, though, as ESSENTIALLY the same: free from original sin and made a “new man” sharing in divine life, an adopted son of God, member of Christ and temple of the Holy Spirit. In the case of Mary “new man” (“new self” in inclusive language) refers only to quality and not to time succession, as she never was in the state of “old man” deprived of original holiness and justice.
If you press me to venture a personal opinion, purely speculative and not to be nailed onto the door of any church, I would say from Fulgens Corona #8 that the state of grace in which Mary was created was higher than that of a newly baptized infant. This opinion would also be in line with the generally accepted doctrine of Mary being also granted freedom from concupiscence, which was not granted to anyone else (except Jesus of course).
Re your point about “whether or not Mary was born a Catholic”, which could more accurately be stated as “whether or not Mary was born as a member of the Church”, the Dogmatic Constitution “Lumen Gentium” states that Mary is “a pre-eminent and singular member of the Church”. Now, that statement has meaning to the extent that the Church exists, and we know that the Church was born publicly in Pentecost and mystically from the open side of Jesus on the Cross. Before then, the statement in principle does not apply, and therefore neither does your point.
But anyway, here is my personal speculation on it (again, not to be nailed onto any door). If the Church is the assembly of those who have been redeemed by Jesus and are “in Him” (Jn 14: 20), then it could be said the the Church existed “in anticipated form” in Mary from the time of her conception, as she was redeemed by Jesus and was “in Him” since that time. Of course, before the Encarnation the Logos did not exist as the man Jesus, but Mary was still “in Him” as the Eternal and Consubstantial Son of God. Thus, while the body of the Logos made man lived in the Virgin since the moment of his conception for nine months, the soul of the Virgin lived in the Logos since the moment of her conception for her whole life.
Here one definition of the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism:
Does this definition of Semi-Pelagianism and the errors it contains contradict the Eastern teaching on synergism?
Needless to say, the occurrences of “Mary was born” in my last post (#350) are just colloquial for “Mary was conceived”. I’m sure that goes for the occurrences of the string in Mateo’s posts as well.
Let me take another stab at this. Semi-Pelagianism is an assertion that the “primary desire for salvation proceeds from the natural powers of man”. That is, Semi-Pelagianism is denial that man is in a real need of actual grace before he can desire the habitual sacramental graces conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism.
The actual grace needed by the unbaptized adult for him to desire the saving graces conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism is divisible into two categories, Antecedent Grace and Consequent Grace.
For those following this conversation, a definition of actual grace and definitions of Antecedent Grace and Consequent Grace follows:
Here is my understanding of the above. In denying Semi-Pelagianism, the Catholic Church teaches that God must give actual grace to the unbaptized man before he can exercise his free will to desire the saving graces bestowed by the Sacrament of Baptism. The actual grace given by God is received first as Antecedent Grace followed by Consequent Grace.
God first gives Antecedent Grace to the unbaptized man (grace also known as gratia praeveniens) which is the movement of God where God works “in us, without us”. Antecedent Grace “produces spontaneous indeliberate acts of knowledge and will.” Since Antecedent Grace produces indeliberate acts of knowledge and will, it can be said that Antecedent Grace must be irresistible.
God follows up Antecedent Grace with Consequent Grace. This is an actual grace where God works “in us, with us.” Antecedent Grace “coincides in time with man’s free act of will.”
Consequent grace is efficacious only if the sinner is exercising his free will “by freely assenting to and co-operating with [Consequent] grace.” Since the sinner must choose to freely assent and co-operate with Consequent Grace, Consequent Grace must therefore be resistible.
It is interesting to me that Dr. Ludwig Ott is quoting the Council of Trent to define both Antecedent Grace and Consequent Grace, and that he quotes Augustine as a source for Church’s teaching on Antecedent Grace and Consequent Grace.
Fr. Kimel and mateo:
I hold that prevenient grace is irresistible because I believe that’s a corollary of the Catholic teaching that God offers every human person grace sufficient for salvation. We are agreed that prevenient grace is needed if we are to respond freely to grace. That’s what we must affirm to avoid semi-Pelagianism. But prevenient grace could not heal the human will enough to enable a free response to consequent grace, if such prevenient grace could be resisted to begin with.
Some synergists reject that argument as incompatible with human freedom. I don’t think it is. The problem disappears when we realize that the mere presence of the Paschal Mystery in the world influences everybody, even those who neither know nor care about it, enough to enable a free embrace of such love and truth as they know.
Jason thank you for responding to my question about why you believe that you have Scriptural support for your belief that original sin is transmitted through the father.
You write:
However, other scriptures actually do point to the “sin of Eve.” In his Commentary to Romans (Chapter 413), Aquinas writes: “However, note that in Sirach It seems, however, that original sin entered this world not through one man, namely, Adam, but through one woman, namely, Eve, who was the first to sin “From a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die” (Si 25:24).”
You may not accept Sirach, but St. Paul would have. In Romans, Paul is focusing on Adam because his point is showing that Adam prefigured Christ, but that focus doesn’t mean that he would have necessarily discounted the “sin of Eve.”
This kind of usage is described as synecdoche. See Reply to Objection 1.
Regarding your view that sin is transmitted by the father, this obviously leads to the question of whether cloned humans generated without original sin?
Worse still, some fraction of human births are parthogenetic – true virgin births. Are we to believe that these women so born do not share original sin?
Further, when you write that “we know that we get our soul from our parents”, that is not entirely clear. A problem with “traducianism” is that since souls are immortal and incorruptible, it is seems unlikely that they have a mortal and corruptible immediate source.
Certainly, you can cite some more passages about “souls” in the “loins” of ancestors, but why should we take those statements as more than literary conventions?
But thank you for explaining to me why you would say these things that do not seem at all obvious to me.
Jason (re:#320),
The main reason that I mentioned the brevity of (many of) your responses (to lengthy comments by others) is that the issues we’re discussing here are of some complexity. They are matters of serious Biblical exegesis and theology, and also of history and philosophy. Such matters cannot *often* be easily addressed without going into some length. Of course, not *all* comments have to be several paragraphs long, but at least in my opinion, it is not very helpful when someone writes a reply to you of some length and substance, and you reply with one or two sentences and a torrent of Scriptures (with little or no exegesis of those Scriptures) to purportedly support the claims of those sentences.
Perhaps the reason that you’re not engaging in much Biblical exegesis and argumentation, and historical and philosophical argumentation, is because you believe that the Scriptures are “self-interpreting. ” The sheer multiplicity of different interpretations, among Protestants, regarding baptism, Communion (the Lord’s Supper), eternal security (or the lack thereof), female ordination, and now, even the sinfulness of active, practiced homosexuality, should, reasonably, put to rest claims of Scripture being “self-interpreting.”
It may also be that your replies are so short, because you are simply trying to reply to too many people at one time, and it is not really possible to have substantive discussions with four to eight people in one comment.
Jason,
In terms of short replies though, I do thank you for your quick forgiveness, regarding my wrong assumption about your changing the subject. :-) Seriously, thank you. Graciousness is not always easy to find on the internet. I am thankful for the abundant amount of it at C2C, from both Catholics and Protestants!
Michael, please exegete for us the passage from Trent that has been previously cited:
“The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight.”
To what does “forasmuch as he is also able to reject it” refer?
“while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it”
Pardon the interuption, but this seems to me to be a prevenient grace that is recieved and rejected (irresistably recieved, then resisted) (man is soaked with rain, then dries off) rather than simply rejected outright (not recieved at all, and rejected) (man puts raincoat on, then gets rained on).
This is a fascinating discussion by the way. As someone who still thinks in terms of the “doctrines of grace” (5 points of Calvinism) but is wanting to be faithful to the magisterium, I find it immensely helpful to hear some higher level discussion on this topic. Keep it up!
Peace,
David Meyer
Here are my 2 cents.
Isn’t prevenient grace the concept that God comes to us first and God seeks us before we even try to seek him. That prevenient grace is that force that allows us to move towards salvation, and gives us the power to respond to God. As someone once said prevenient grace is “free for all and free in all”.
Even though that it is present in all of us, we can reject it or squash it by our actions over a period of time or in other words we can reject it by our failure to respond.
Norm
@345- “How many Lutheran groups are there in the USA?” However many believe what is contained in the following: https://www.bookofconcord.org/
As for Rick Warren, the standard is the Bible as to what is and is not heresy, Romans 9 rules out decision theology (it’s pelagianism) and it’s been condemned at numerous councils (which are only authoratative in so far as they agree with the Word of God). Rick Warren is no Calvinist, a Calvinist would never say Jesus died to give us a “mulligan”. If you don’t believe me read Calvin and then compare that to one of Rick Warren’s books.
@346- Article VII of the Augsburg Confession answeres your question.
Article VII: Of the Church.
1] Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered.
2] And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3] the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike. 4] As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6.
@347- “You were wrong once before, but now you are pretty sure, but not absolutely sure, that you are correct.”-
Not exactly. I am absolutely sure
“You would be willing to change your mind again if reason could convince you.”
Again, not quite. I would be willing to change my mind if convinced from scripture primarily, and reason used as a tool to interpret the scriptures but not with reason ruling over scripture.
“You changed your thinking because you found other men’s interpretations of the Bible to be more reasonable to you personally.”
Not quite, I initially found Calvinism more reasonable. The scriptures forced me into Lutheranism over against my reason, which dictated that Calvinism be correct.
“….all these Protestants believe that they too are being scriptural and reasonable in their personal interpretations of the Bible.”
The scriptures are an objective thing and a great body of many types of literature which are to be interpretted according to a plain understanding of the text (i.e. don’t literalize alagory, don’t alogorize something that is to be take literal, don’t build theology on isolated verses, etc.), I have to set aside my personal “interpretations” and let the text correct me. True there are many protestant churches who have plenty of error and I am not slow to engage them and show it to them but if the preach the Biblical Gospel that is the number one most important thing. I won’t take communion with them but I still think they are Christians.
“I will ask you again, if you can’t show me where the Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura is explicitly taught in the Bible, why should I accept Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine? As a Protestant, could you please explain to me why should I accept a doctrine that is nowhere taught in the Bible?”
If you looked up those passages you would see that Jesus treated the scriptures as an inerrant authority, does He ever point to another? Do the apostles? No, they say hold fast to the “traditions” they had all ready recieved and that they are of no private interpretation (which means no one gets to make them say something other than what they actually say, it does not mean the pope gets to dictate his private interpretation) and if anyone preach another Gospel they are anathema.
So lets just assume the Bible does not teach that it is the only infallible authority but that it is AN infalible authority. Does it not stand to reason that anything that contradicts it is in error?
@355- “You may not accept Sirach, but St. Paul would have.”
Based on what evidence? Note that Sirach is not in the Jewish Cannon.
Is there any scripture placing the responsibility for the fall on anyone other than Adam, I know there are some aspects of the curse incurred by the fall that are attributed to Eve’s sin but if she is responsible why didn’t the fall occur when she sinned?
“Regarding your view that sin is transmitted by the father, this obviously leads to the question of whether cloned humans generated without original sin?”
How do we know they would even have a soul? We don’t know what would come out of such a thing. We do know they would not live very long and die probably within 10 years of cancer as they would be concieved artificially genetically old. (According to Dr. Kurt Weiss)
“Worse still, some fraction of human births are parthogenetic – true virgin births. Are we to believe that these women so born do not share original sin?”
I never heard of such a thing happening with humans. I will have to ask my fiancée about that since she works in that field.
.” A problem with “traducianism” is that since souls are immortal and incorruptible, it is seems unlikely that they have a mortal and corruptible immediate source”
Souls are not incorruptable, and if Adam’s soul is immortal (yet spiritually dead in trespasses and sins) and we inherit our corrupt soul from him what is the problem?
“Certainly, you can cite some more passages about “souls” in the “loins” of ancestors, but why should we take those statements as more than literary conventions?”
1. I will accept that it might not be clear to you but the text seems to teach it. 2.It makes original sin make sense. 3. It fits perfectly with apostolic teaching. Furthermore, creationism would make God the creator of dead, corrupt souls which He is not.
“The sheer multiplicity of different interpretations, among Protestants, regarding baptism, Communion (the Lord’s Supper), eternal security (or the lack thereof), female ordination, and now, even the sinfulness of active, practiced homosexuality, should, reasonably, put to rest claims of Scripture being “self-interpreting.” ”
Actually no, it merely attests to the depravity of man as taught in the Scriptures. It only shows that people deviate from the word of God. I would also like to point out that the unity among Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are only appearant and there actually exists greater diversity than is let on. A few months ago I read where a Vatican excorcist complained of Bishops who do not believe in Jesus. There is also historical evidence that some popes did not believe in Jesus.
357- Chris, we all need to remember to be especially gracious with the internet because we cannot see each others faces and something that seems mean or cruel in print might not be percieved that way in person where body language is present. Not to mention, most importantly, that we should forgive anyway because we have been forgiven.
Thanks All!
Fr Al:
I interpret that passage as implying that one can reject prevenient grace after it has done some of its work. Why? Because the ability to accept grace freely is itself the work of grace; to claim that one can freely accept prevenient grace without its aid would be semi-Pelagianism. Therefore, one can be held accountable for rejecting grace only after it has been offered and received to a degree sufficient to enable one to accept it.
Best,
Mike
The passage from the Council of Trent that is being discussed (The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V) can be read in its context here:
The passage being discussed is about the nature of the actual grace that adults receive that prepares them to receive the habitual grace conferred by the Sacrament of Baptism.
The Catholic theology of grace distinguishes between actual grace and sanctifying grace (habitual grace). Dr. Ludwig Ott, in his book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma notes that the term actual grace “gained general currency only after the Council of Trent, which did not use the term.”
In Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, in the section Actual Grace, Dr. Ott defines actual grace and categorizes different types of actual grace:
One of the sources of Catholic dogma that Dr. Ott quotes when writing about antecedent grace and consequent grace is Denzinger 797 (i.e. D 797) which just happens to be The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V – the very passage from Trent under discussion.
Dr. Ott writes that in antecedent grace (gratia praeveniens – prevenient grace) God works alone “in us, without us”. In consequent grace God works “in us, with us”. Since Dr. Ott sees the The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V as a foundational source for the teaching about antecedent grace and consequent grace, I think that that ought to be examined carefully. But before I do that, I would note that the CCC also discusses the actual grace that prepares a man to receive habitual grace. The CCC quotes St. Augustine in describing the actual grace that precedes habitual grace. It is interesting to me that St. Augustine speaks of the actual grace that prepares man for habitual grace in terms of healing:
I believe that the “it” that can be rejected refers to the illumination of the Holy Ghost that is received by adults at the beginning of Justification. The illumination of the Holy Ghost is conveyed by actual grace that “consists in a direct internal enlightenment of the understanding and a direct internal strengthening of the will.” (See Dr. Ott’s definition of Actual Grace above). The actual grace that prepares the adult to receive habitual grace is received in the adult through antecedent grace and consequent grace.
First, let us look at the why Dr. Ott teaches that the de fide dogmas about antecedent grace and consequent grace are taught in Denzinger 797 (i.e. D 797) – which is the passage under discussion – The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V.
Dr. Ott writes:
Note that Dr. Ott is using a translation from the Latin to English of D 797 that is somewhat different than the English translation by Canon J. Waterworth that is quoted by Johannes.
Waterworth’s translation D 797 that speaks of prevenient grace. This prevenient grace is referred to by Dr. Ott as praeveniente gratia, which Dr. Ott writes is also a reference in the Catholic theology of grace to antecedens, excitans, vocans, operans.
Let us compare the different translations of D 797. This is translation of Waterworth:
Dr. Ott’s translation:
Thus, the prevenient grace of Waterworth’s translation of D 797 is the antecedent grace of Dr. Ott’s translation of D 797.
Dr. Ott’s definition of antecedent grace:
After first speaking about prevenient grace, Waterworth’s translation of D 797 next mentions quickening and assisting grace :
The quickening and assisting grace in Waterworth’s translation of D797 is the consequent grace spoken of by Dr. Ott:
Dr. Ott’s definition of consequent grace:
Now let me paraphrase D 797 using both Waterworth’s and Dr. Ott’s quotes of D 797, and then comment on my paraphrase:
My commentary on the above:
A man’s will, at the beginning of his Justification, is healed of some of the effects of the Fall by antecedent grace. This healing of the will is a sovereign act of God that is given to the man without any merits existing on his part. The man makes no choice on his part either for against this sovereign act of God. In antecedent grace God works alone “in us, without us”.
After receiving a healing of the will through antecedent grace, the man then receives consequent grace. He may be disposed to convert himself to his own justification by freely assenting to and co-operating with consequent grace. But then again, because his free will has been healed by antecedent grace prior to his receiving consequent grace, he can also make a free choice to not cooperate with consequent grace. Consequent grace allows the man to make a real choice to cooperate or not cooperate with God. When we cooperate with consequent grace, God works “in us, with us”.
It is not the prevenient grace (antecedent grace) that can be resisted by the man receiving actual grace – it is the quickening and assisting grace (consequent grace) that can be resisted by the man receiving actual grace. We also receive actual graces to perform salutory acts after we have been justified by habitual grace. Since our will is freed by healing grace, we can always make the choice to resist consequent grace. IMO, many sins of omission are committed by resisting consequent grace.
The choice to commit mortal sins entails the loss of habitual grace, which means that we lose our justification by falling from grace.
My question is NOT about whether Jesus or the Apostles thought scriptures (which would be the Septuagint for Jesus and the Apostles) were authoritative. Of course Jesus and the Apostles accepted these OT scriptures as being authoritative. You didn’t answer my question, but instead you make a claim that the scriptures show that Jesus and the Apostles accepted no other authority than the scriptures. But your claim has no basis in scriptures, as can be proven just by reading the scriptures.
Scriptures show that Jesus himself is an authority, and he had no qualms about using his authority to interpret scriptures. Scriptures show that Jesus gives his authority to the Apostles to forgive sins and to act in his name, and to bind and loose. Jesus teaches that the church that he founded has authority that the Christian must listen to: “ … if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector” Matt 17:18. Scriptures do teach that scriptures are an authority, but they also teach that the church is an authority. More examples – the Apostles meet in Jerusalem and use their authority to settle a question vexing the early Christian community. There is no doubt that the scriptures show the existence of apostolic authority. The scriptures teach that that the Christians are to hold fast to the doctrines taught by the Apostles, but nowhere do the scriptures make a list of what those doctrines are.
The scriptures teach us there are many forms of authority that the Christian must accept – but nowhere do scriptures explicitly teach Luther’s novel “alone” doctrine. Again I ask you, since Luther’s novel “alone” doctrine is nowhere taught in scriptures, as a Protestant, what reason can you give me for believing Luther’s novel “alone” doctrine is true?
We don’t have to assume that. Scriptures do teach that they are an inerrant authority. That is not a controversy between us. Since scriptures are inerrant, then it stands to reason that anything that contradicts them are in error.
What scriptures don’t teach anywhere is that the scriptures are the ONLY inerrant authority for the Christian. Since Luther’s novel “alone” doctrine is nowhere taught in the scriptures, then it is NOT reasonable to make Luther’s sola scriptura doctrine a foundational doctrine of my faith – and then after doing that, to turn around and make a claim I am being scriptural!
Nor is it scriptural to found my own personal “Bible Church” and call that being scriptural, since there is nothing in scriptures that speak about men running around founding churches where the Bible is their only authority. What I find to be unscriptural are men founding Protestant Bible Churches, and the Protestant practice of church shopping among thousands upon thousands of Bible Churches that teach conflicting doctrine! Where did Jesus ever say “upon this Protestant Bible I will build my church?”
Can you please explain to me how scriptures forced you to act against your reason to accept Lutheranism over Calvinism? If your reasoning didn’t let you know that Lutheranism was more reasonable in its interpretations of the Bible than Calvinism’s interpretations of the Bible, then how is it that you come to accept Lutheranism?
How is it that you are absolutely sure that the particular sect of Lutheranism that you belong to is the only sect on the face of the earth that infallibly interprets the scriptures, when Luther himself taught that no man can teach infallibly?
Jason (re:#361)
You write that the differing Protestant interpretations, on the subjects that I listed, are due to that the fact that people “deviate from the word of God.” So Baptists disagree with Presbyterians on baptism, because Baptists are deviating from the word of God? Baptists would say that it is the Presbyterians who are deviating from the “clear teaching of Scripture” on baptism.
What about the issue of whether or not a Christian can lose his/her salvation? Lutherans teach that it is possible, while Presbyterians would answer in the negative. Who is “deviating from the word of God,” and how do we know?
The ultimate question, which is foundationally “beneath” all of the above, is, who has the *authority* to determine and declare the right interpretation of the word of God, so that we can even *say* who is deviating from it or interpreting it rightly? Can you truly say anything other than that, in the end, other Protestant denominations are simply deviating from the *interpretation* of the word of God that you have chosen to accept, because you agree with it?
Mateo quotes this exchange:
To which Mateo responds:
I’d like to push this line of questioning even further. Jason is claiming that his reason told him Calvinism was correct (as a Bible reader at the time). Then he says that Scripture forced him, “over against against [his] reason,” into Lutheranism. Jason, are you stating that Lutheranism is unreasonable, or only that you found it to be so when you were a Calvinist? If you no longer think it is unreasonable, isn’t it then correct to say that, having formerly been convinced of the reasonableness of Calvinism, you found based on deeper study of Scripture that the Lutheran interpretations of Scripture were more reasonable? Surely if you thought Lutheranism unreasonable in its claims about Scripture, you would not have left what you say was a rationally satisfying Calvinism, right? You became convinced, after studying Scripture, that Lutheranism better accounted for and more perfectly agreed with Scripture.
You became convinced is the important bit here. You’ve stated previously that you were once a Pelagian, but then you studied Scripture and you became convinced of Calvinism. Then after some time you studied Scripture and you became convinced of Lutheranism. How is it that you do not see that, at each stage, it is your personal interpretation of Scripture (i.e., the interpretation that you become convinced is the correct one) that has lead you to reject your former beliefs in favor of your newer ones?
If you truly believed that Calvinism was correct, and that as a consequence Reformed leaders had actual binding authority over you rooted in Scripture, then when you began to become convinced that Lutheranism might instead be correct, shouldn’t you rather have submitted to the Scripturally mandated authority of your Reformed church? If not, then it never actually had any authority over you at all, because its authority was always contingent on your agreement with its interpretation of Scripture… which means that in practice you had placed yourself in a position of authority over your church (“when I submit only when I agree, the person to whom I submit is me”). Now you say you are “absolutely sure” of Lutheranism (and I believe you say so with completely sincerity). You are “absolutely sure” of it because you are convinced that Augsburg and the Book of Concord correctly interpret Scripture. So nothing has changed, functionally: you are convinced that the Lutheran interpretation of Scripture is correct because when you read Scripture, that is the interpretation that seems obvious to you–to your eyes it is the most reasonable interpretation. If one day in the future you were studying Scripture and began to question the faithfulness of Lutheranism to the real intent of Scripture, and thought that perhaps those Wesleyans may in fact have had it right all along, you would have two choices: submit to the authority of whatever Lutheran body you happen to be in “over against [your] reason” (your reading of Scripture), or go against the authority of the Lutheran body and embrace Wesleyanism (which I have no doubt seems abhorrent to you right now–just as leaving Calvinism for Lutheranism would have been to you years ago).
I’m really not interested in a trite “that would never happen because Lutheranism is correct” dismissal of this post. That’s not an answer, that’s dodging, disrespectful and, offered as a defense of your faith, it is dishonest. So with a respectful request for your honest engagement, I repeat my question: how do you not see that, at each juncture, it is your personal interpretation of Scripture (the interpretation that you are convinced is correct and obvious) that has lead you to reject your former beliefs in favor of your later ones? And, as a corollary, how do you not see that this unavoidably means that, functionally speaking, it is your judgment of what is the most reasonable (that is, the correct) interpretation of Scripture that is your real authority? Or (and here’s your easy way out on this), do you instead believe that the correct interpretation of Scripture is in fact unreasonable?
I only have time for one quick response.
367-
“Jason, are you stating that Lutheranism is unreasonable, or only that you found it to be so when you were a Calvinist?”
Calvinism is logically tight but there are some passages that do not fit double predestination or limited atonement and they have to engage in some intellectual acrobatics (though not so much as the RCC or the Arminians) to get it to say what they say it says. They let the unclear passages dictate the meaning of the clear passages instead of the other way around in an effort to make everything fit according to human reasoning. Lutheranism is not unreasonable but it does not chain itself to reason as Calvinism does. If you read Calvin you will see that He presupposes that God must act and work in accordance with reason but human reason is corrupted by sin. We must use reason as a tool when interpreting the scriptures but we must let the text speak for itself and not make the text fit our reason.
“How is it that you do not see that, at each stage, it is your personal interpretation of Scripture (i.e., the interpretation that you become convinced is the correct one) that has lead you to reject your former beliefs in favor of your newer ones?”
How do you not see that it is the text itself that led me to adjust my interpretation. You guys would do well to not subjectivize everything because the same standard can be applied to your interpretation of the teaching of the RCC as there is some diversity in it that you do not admit.
365-
“Where did Jesus ever say “upon this Protestant Bible I will build my church?””
I would like to point out that the greek grammar does not allow for the RC interpretation of that verse. The Rock is Christ.
“Scriptures do teach that scriptures are an authority, but they also teach that the church is an authority. ”
I agree with everything you said except the Church is not above or equal to scripture. The Church is under the Scriptures which are authoritative because Jesus said they are and ultimately all of these authorities are under the Authority of Jesus. Niether Jesus nor the Apostles placed any authority on equal par with the scriptures. They always appeal to the scriptures as the authoritive source for doctrine and practice. I appreciate your objection to people going off to form their own churches but if it is a case of having to separate from an apostate body then it is necessary.
“How is it that you are absolutely sure that the particular sect of Lutheranism that you belong to is the only sect on the face of the earth that infallibly interprets the scriptures, when Luther himself taught that no man can teach infallibly?”
Strawman. Never said that. I might have something to the effect that there are no errors in our confessions, but if they are ever found they will be removed.
I would also note that we are not the sect (well, maybe the ELCA is), the RCC became a sect when it anathematized the Gospel at Trent (I mean only to speak the truth in love, I am not trying to offend anyone though I know it probably will).
“The scriptures teach that that the Christians are to hold fast to the doctrines taught by the Apostles, but nowhere do the scriptures make a list of what those doctrines are.”
Are you kidding me? Haven’t you read 1st Corinthians 15? Or
2 Timothy 3:14-16 (New International Version)
14But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
@all- if any of you have read the Augsburg confession via the link I provided do make sure and read the RC response and the Apology.
I have got to go. I will try to cath up later if I can.
Catholics, of course, believe that there is a teaching office (the living magisterium) within the Church founded by Christ. The Catholic Church does NOT claim that this teaching office is above scriptures.
The scriptures are an authority for the Christian and the Church founded by Christ is an authority for the Christian. That is what taught in the scriptures. Nowhere is it taught in scriptures that the ONLY inerrant authority for the Christian is what is written in the scriptures. That “alone” doctrine is a novelty of Martin Luther.
You still have not addressed my question. As a Protestant, what reason can you give me for making a foundational belief of my faith a novel doctrine that is never explicitly taught in scriptures?
Jason said that he believes that “the Church is not above or equal to scripture.”
Jason, l believe that we agree that any teaching authority in the Church founded by Christ “is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”
Two more questions for you Jason, if I may.
1). Does anyone in the Church founded by Christ have the authority to interpret scriptures in a way that binds the members of Christ’s Church to that interpretation?
2). Do the scriptures teach that Christians have the right to “church shop” until they find a church that agrees with their own personal interpretation of the Bible?
Jason said, alluding to Matt. 16:18 –
While that’s as may be (is it? I’ll take your word for it for the nonce), it’s also worth pointing out that the RC contention that Jesus was thereby giving special authority to St. Peter (which is borne out elsewhere, such as in the exchange at the end of John’s gospel) does not stand or fall solely on the referent of “this rock”. I.e., he also in the same breath dubbed Kepha “Peter” for no apparent other reason, and explicitly tied it to the endurance of his Church. Also, even if that fails, I think the legitimacy of the papacy does not necessarily stand or fall on any particular reading of Matt. 16:18. On the other hand, if it is legitimate, it would be very implausible to suggest that Matt. 16:18 has nothing to do with it.
On that note, what’s the Protestant gloss for Matt. 16:19? The only thing that comes to mind is “Oh, but he meant just ‘you guys standing here now. After you’re gone, all bets are off.'” Evidently so.
How does Christ get to be the foundation and head of the Church if there’s no Church? (cf. “Ecclesial Deism”)
Hey Jason,
You said:
I’d like to challenge you on this claim. So would you please substantiate your assertion? Please feel free to copy and paste the Greek text if you need it.
Here’s the Paradoseis Journal on Peter as the Rock.
Tim, thanks for your link to the article in Paradoseis Journal on Peter as the Rock. I am not a language scholar, so I didn’t think I could address Jason’s comment adequately. But I knew that there would be someone reading this thread that could. My thanks to David Pell too!
For those following the conversation in this thread about Semi-Pelagianism and how that is related to the The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V, one can find more discussion about Semi-Pelagianism in Tim’s thread:
“Is the Catholic Church Semi-Pelagian”
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/is-the-catholic-church-semi-pelagian/
Bryan Cross makes these points in his post #12 in Tim’s Is the Catholic Church Semi-Pelagian thread:
Bryan makes a good point about doing evil, and I should revise what I said my post # 364, where I said:
When we cooperate with consequent grace, God works “in us, with us”. If we make the choice to not cooperate with consequent grace, then we are rejecting grace. I don’t think that when we reject any grace that we can say that God is working “in us, with us” !
Michael Liccone, in his post # 362 in this thread, makes an excellent point about accountability for rejecting grace:
Regarding the actual grace that prepares the adult for justification, I found more about that in Dr. Ott’s book Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, where again, Dr. Ott quotes The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V (D 797):
Jason #368: “I would like to point out that the greek grammar does not allow for the RC interpretation of that verse. The Rock is Christ.”
There is a possible obstacle to the RC interpretation, but it does NOT come from the Greek grammar. Literally translated into English, the 1st half of Mt 16: 18 would be:
“And so I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church”. (Mt 16: 18)
Where both instances of “rock” were “kepha” in the original Aramaic, in which the same word kepha is used for a rock or a man’s name. When the text was translated to Greek (by Matthew or the final author), as the word “petra” for a rock is feminine, the 1st Kepha was changed to “Petros” (masculine ending) to make it suitable for a man’s name.
The possible obstacle to the RC interpretation comes from Jesus’ IMPLICIT BODY LANGUAGE. I will make it explicit between () to render the two versions of Mt 16:18:
“And so I say to you (pointing to Simon), you are Rock, and (still pointing to Simon) upon this rock I will build my church”. (RC version)
“And so I say to you (pointing to Simon), you are Rock, and (now pointing to Himself) upon this rock I will build my church”. (Protestant version)
To note, the Protestant version is conceptually in line with 1 Peter 2: 4-5, which uses “lithos” = “stone” instead of “petra” = “rock”:
“Come to Him (Jesus), a living stone, rejected by human beings but chosen and precious in the sight of God, and, like living stones (the faithful), let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” (1 Peter 2: 4-5)
Thus, in the Protestant version Jesus is the rock / cornerstone upon which the Church is built, and Simon is just another living rock / stone in the Church’s building, just like any other faithful is.
Actually, the Protestant version IS correct in a certain sense: at the personal, spiritual level Jesus IS the rock upon which we the faithful are built like living stones (the rock that is referred to many times in the Psalms), and this truth applies to any faithful, obviously including Simon and his successors the bishops of Rome. The problem is that it is not logical to interpret Jesus’ words in Mt 16: 18 in that sense, for several reasons:
1. Why would Jesus rename Simon as Rock only to say immediately that He Himself was the rock?
2. More importantly, why would Jesus rename Simon as Rock if He was meaning that Simon was just another living rock in the Church’s building?
3. Even more importantly, the only way to interpret adequately Mt 16: 18 is by reading it within the whole statement by Jesus. Let’s see what the Protestant version looks like:
17: Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. (In this verse Simon is definitely special.)
18: And so I say to you, you are Rock, and upon this rock (Myself) I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (In this verse Simon is just like any other faithful, even though he is renamed for some strange reason.)
19: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (In this verse Simon is again special. Or was there yet another change in Jesus’ body language and He is now pointing to the circle around Him so that “you” refers now to the 12 Apostles?)
We must use reason to interpret the Scripture. An interpretation of Mt 16: 18 where “upon this rock” does not refer to Simon defies any logic.
In my previous post, when commenting verse 16:19, I forgot that in Greek personal pronouns have differerent forms for singular and plural. So there was no possible argument of a further change in Jesus’ body language.
RE: the discussion of monergism, synergism, operating grace, cooperating grace and Semi-Pelagianism in this thread –
In this exchange, David Pell speaks of “subsequent grace” grace as gratia cooperativa. This subsequent grace, or “cooperating grace” is what Canon Waterworth calls quickening and assisting grace in Waterworth’s translation of “The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V.”
Dr. Ludwig Ott speaks of quickening and assisting grace as “consequent grace”. Cooperating grace is synergistic and it is efficacious only if man truly cooperates with God (God works “in us, with us”.)
In post # 282, Tim Troutman quotes Aquinas: “… grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating.” In addition to the cooperating grace mentioned by David Pell, there is also operating grace. Operating grace is what Canon Waterworth calls prevenient grace in his translation of “The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V.”
Dr. Ott calls prevenient grace “antecedent grace”, and in antecedent grace (operating grace) God works alone “in us, without us”. Operating grace is monergistic because it is efficacious without needing man’s cooperation.
Summing up the above: The actual grace that prepares man for receiving the grace of justification is actual grace that “internally and directly enlightens the understanding and strengthens the will.” (Dr. Ott). This “illumination of the Holy Ghost” (D 797) is received as a monergistic movement by God as antecedent grace. The consequent grace that follows the reception of antecedent grace allows a synergistic movement towards the grace of justification. The actual grace that prepares man for justification is both/and – both monergistic and synergistic.
Question for David Pell (or anyone else). Dr. Ott writes: “this grace [antecedent grace] is called gratia praeveniens (also antecedens, excitans, vocans, operans).”
gratia praeveniens – prevenient grace
anteceden – antecedent grace
operans– operating grace
I am assuming I have the above correct.
My question: What is the English translation of excitans and vocans?
Tim Troutman in his article “Is the Catholic Church Semi-Pelagian” writes:
Tim, any guess as to how close is CTC to releasing an in depth article dedicated to synergism?
Mateo,
I’m not a theologian and am glad that there are people here who know the ins and outs of the systematic theology better than I do. In fact, I regret even getting into that discussion because I don’t know whether I helped or just made things more confusing by adding what I thought was correct when, for all I know, I wasn’t using the right terminology. All I know is that the Catholic Church teaches that I can’t come to God on my own. That’s enough for my own conscience and enough for me to correct Protestants who think I believe in “works righteousness.”
As for the Latin adjectives, excitans means something like “arousing” or the cognate “exciting.” It is the present participle of the verb cito, “to urge on/summon/set in motion/excite” with the intensifying prefix ex-, literally “out.” Vocans means “calling.” It’s the present participle of the verb vocare, “to call.” From it we derive the English words “vocation” and “vocal.”
This is just me speaking as a student trained in classical philology. I don’t know if this is helpful in establishing technical theological terminology, and I apologize if this wasn’t the kind of answer you were looking for.
Mateo – I hope it will be soon, but I wouldn’t expect it for at least a few months. Maybe we can squeeze in a blog post to hold us over until then. It’s an important (and difficult) subject that we want to handle with care.
I am a linguist by training and read Greek, so the Protestant objection never occurred to me when I was on the way to becoming a Catholic. In particular, I think it a great loss that we no longer use the ye/thou distinction in our English Bible translations. In several places the distinction in the original is decisive – but is lost because English – very unusually amongst world languages – has lost this distinction in the second person.
In Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus asks them, “who do you-plural say that I am” – then He says, “I say unto thee (you-singular) that thou art rock …” etc In Luke 22:31 He tells them, “Satan has asked to sift you-plural” – and then “but I have prayed for thee (you-singular), Simon, that thy faith fail not”
The distinction is so essential that most dialects of English have evolved ways around it:
“youse” (New Zealand and others)
“you-all” (American South)
“you-uns” (America southeast black)
“you guys” (California)
and so forth.
jj
I don’t think that you should have any regrets for entering the discussion. For me, what you say is insightful and I enjoy reading your comments. As you say, the Catholic Church does indeed teach that we can’t come to God on our own – which is why she has condemned Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism as heresy. Why a Calvinist would accuse a Catholic of being Semi-Pelagian was a mystery to me. Tim Troutman gives on answer to that question in his article Is the Catholic Church Semi-Pelagian:
Dr. Ott explains why the Calvinist accusation of Semi-Pelagianism is inevitable:
For Calvin, the totally depraved fallen man must be translated by irresistible grace from the state of being of total depravity to the state of being of justification. This leads to a further problem – what does it mean for a justified man living on earth to be in a state of grace? Is being in a state of grace the mere possession of a legal contract that declares the sinner to be “not guilty because of Christ’s sacrifice”? If justification can be severed from sanctification, how do we become sanctified? Monergism and synergism enter the discussion both before and after justification.
In regard to the actual grace that prepares a man to receive justifying grace; it makes sense to me that “operating grace” or “prevenient grace” could be called gratia excitans, since prevenient grace “arouses” or “ excites” within us the illumination of the Holy Spirit that enlightens the reason and strengthens the will.
Vocans means “calling” – that makes sense to me. Prevenient grace calls us to prepare for the grace of justification.
Vocans being the root of vocation is interesting too. Waterworth’s translation of D 797 speaks of speaks of Christ’s vocation and its relationship to the prevenient grace of God:
I did a google search on gratia vocans and turned up this reference:
David, your response was exactly what I was looking for, and it was very helpful. I can get exasperated when an author throws out a phrase in Latin without translating the phrase. Dr. Ott does that a lot his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, and it makes it difficult for me to read his book. But then, the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma was not written for the layman, but for priests who would have had training in Latin, so I have no excuse for whining. I am thankful for having a forum at CTC where I am able to ask language experts what the Latin phrases mean. If I may ask another favor of you, would you translate for me the phrases “gratia vocans sive excitans” and “gratia adiuvans” as they were used in this sentence: “Prevenient grace, regarded as a divine call to penance, is often styled gratia vocans sive excitans, and if it is received with a willing heart, gratia adiuvans.” Another frustrating example of a Catholic author using Latin phrases without giving their translation. Thanks!
I am looking forward to the article, and I appreciate those concerns. I hope that you include a glossary of all the technical terms that will be used in the article.
One way to put mateo’s point in general terms: the Calvinist who accuses the Catholic of semi-Pelagianism is committing what might be called the “fallacy of incomplete analysis,” in which one makes a show of trying to understand a concept analogous to one’s own, but that is actually informed by a different conceptual scheme. Then, when one isolates it from that other conceptual scheme and compares it with one’s own, it is bound to be incommensurable with it and guaranteed to come out looking grotesque or otherwise absurd. Rather, the concept should be understood according to the overall conceptual scheme in which it resides. I actually just wrote a blog post about this general phenomenon, since it manifests itself repeatedly in attempts at Protestant/Catholic dialogue. (Another example: for the Protestant, Mary is a nativity-set figurine that only comes out of the closet during Christmastime; veneration of that is bound to come out looking absurd.)
Mateo,
Thanks for your encouragement. It is a blessing for me that my training can be of service to you.
Gratia vocans sive excitans means “calling or [sive] arousing grace.” Both participles go with the noun gratia, which is not repeated. Gratia originally meant something like “popularity,” “esteem,” “influence” or “favor.” It is related to the adjective gratus. Hence the person who is not related to you in a state of gratia is a persona non grata. It is this sense of the word which gives it the meaning “thanks,” shortened from “I give you thanks.” “Thanks be to God” in Latin is Deo gratias. And so in Spanish the word for “thanks” is “gracias.” In English it also shows up in words like “grateful” and “gracious.”
The word adiuvans in the phrase gratia adiuvans is, like vocans and excitans, an adjective derived from a present participle. The verb from which the participle is derived is iuvare, which means “to help/aid.” The verb appears in another form in the opening of the divine office, when we say “O God, come to my aid. O Lord, make haste to help me (Domine, ad adiuvandum me festina).”
David – you have blessed me by helping me understand the Latin that Catholic theologians use. I would bet that there are others reading this thread that have benefited from your knowledge too. Regarding the twofold division of the actual grace that prepares the adult to receive the sanctifying grace of justification, from you I just learned:
gratia vocans could be called “calling grace”
gratia adiuvans could be called “helping grace” or “aiding grace”.
In Waterworth’s English translation of the The Council of Trent, Session VI, Chapter V, the twofold division of actual grace that prepares man to receive the grace of justification is labeled “prevenient grace” and “quickening and assisting grace”.
Gratia adiuvans is the equivalent of Waterworth’s “quickening and assisting grace”; i.e. “Helping and aiding grace” equals “quickening and assisting grace” – that makes perfect sense.
In Waterworth’s English translation of Trent, Waterworth’s “prevenient grace” is the equivalent of gratia vocans (calling grace). Again, that makes sense.
In the Wikipedia article on Prevenient Grace, it says this about the 18th century usage of the English word “prevenient”:
Msgr. Joseph Pohle translates “prevent” (praevenit) as “precede” here:
From Msgr. Joseph Pohle, I learned of another pair of terms to describe the twofold division of the actual grace being discussed above: praeveniens and subsequens. I assume that subsequens translates as “subsequent”, and thus we get “preceding grace” and “subsequent grace” – which is the same as Dr. Ott’s “antecedent grace and “consequent grace”.
What have I learned so far? It is a de fide teaching of the Church that there is a twofold division of the actual grace that enlightens the understanding and strengthens the will of the adult preparing to receive the Sacrament of Baptism. Canon Waterworth’s English translation of Trent describes that twofold division of actual grace with the terms “prevenient grace” and “quickening and assisting grace”. The words “prevenient” and “quickening and assisting” have their functional equivalents in Catholic literature with these terms:
praeveniens and subsequens
preceding and subsequent
antecedens and concomitans
antecedent and consequent
operans and cooperans
operating and cooperating
vocans and adiuvans
calling and aiding
exitans and adiuvans
arousing and helping.
Substituting Waterworth’s terms “prevenient grace” and “quickening and assisting grace” with their equivalents of “preceding grace” and “subsequent grace” we would have this:
In this thread we have also introduced the concepts of irresistible grace and resistible grace. In the Catholic theology of grace, prevenient/preceding/antecedent/operating grace is irresistible, because with this grace, God works “in us, without us”. “Quickening/assisting/aiding/subsequent/consequent/cooperating grace is resistible, because for this grace to be efficacious, we must cooperate with God who works “in us, with us”. Furthermore, the distinction between irresistible and resistible grace must be taken into account in any coherent discussion of monergism and synergism.
If one can’t understand the meaning of the language being used, one can’t really understand what is being discussed. Understanding that St. Augustine taught the irresistibility of prevenient grace helps me see more clearly where the train of thought goes off the rails in the unending Calvinism vs. Arminianism debate.
Gracias, David!
Excellent points, Micah. It is difficult to have a fruitful dialog when people are using the same terms to mean entirely different things. Thinking about your post, and after reading the Wikipedia article on Prevenient Grace, I thought that CTC could use an article titled : A Catholic view of the Calvinism vs. Arminianism Debate: A case study in the fallacy of incomplete analysis.
:-)
Here are two snippets from the Wikipedia article:
If the Wesleyan Arminians believe that St. Augustine taught that prevenient grace is resistible, then they did not understand St. Augustine. Likewise, if Calvinists think that St. Augustine taught that prevenient grace necessitated the grace of justification, or that prevenient grace is identical with the act of regeneration, then neither do the Calvinists understand St. Augustine.
Micah, could you give a link to your blog post that you mentioned above
Sure thing, here it is: https://www.upsaid.com/catholicity/index.php?action=viewcom&id=464
great website. good articles. very helpful. good back n forth on this thread. im on a road to rome. i havnt made it there. yet. glad i stumbled across this website. ill be around.
[…] […]
@387 Nicholas, make sure you read the Book of Concorde before you make a decision to submit to the Pope. https://www.bookofconcord.org/
And maybe talk to some people who left the priesthood of Rome for the reformation.
https://www.bereanbeacon.org/
[…] against N.T. Wright’s opinion about such-and-such teaching while living in Durham, England, won’t get you beaten down like going against Calvin in Geneva would have. Still, Wright’s influence is incredible. He represents in some ways everything for the […]
I benefited from your essay and have two thoughts.
1. I have found a consistent theme in those who leave evangelicalism, or should I say a lack of a theme. That theme or lack there of is the doctrine of salvation and specifically Justification. Calvin and Luther may have been nasty men, and very sinful, but how is it that so many leave Evangelicalism and do not leave because Reformational Justification is not dealt with? Rome has erred seriously on this topic and itself is prideful in how it dealt with Luther and the rest, i.e. Huss.
2. The fact that Evangelicalism failed you does not conclude that the reformation was wrong. Evangelicalism is wrong in so many ways, agreed!
Thanks again for your site.
Patrick Malone
Patrick,
Those who come into full communion with the Catholic Church come from a variety of backgrounds and circumstances. No one Catholic convert begins the travel to full communion with the Church in the same way. Some come because the Liturgy, others because of the issue of the Canon, others because of the Eucharist, others because of history, still others because of Justification. Where the stories of conversion do often converge is on the issue of Authority. Who has the Divinely given authority to speak in the name of Christ and who or which Church has been intended and established by Christ to navigate the waters of the faith? So I would say that no one story is alike but all the stories at some point intersect: namely, people become convinced by the grace of God to recognize the Catholic Church as the Church we mean when we say “The Church”.
[…] https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/ […]
[…] article when I visited From the Priory. He excerpts from an interesting article entitled “How John Calvin Made me a Catholic.” As I am currently about half-way through a volume of Calvin’s selected writings, I […]
As one who has for the last 15 years read Calvin’s works, his fellow reformers, and late medieval theology in the original languages (currently completing a PhD in this area) I was intrigued by this article. As a Protestant, I have great respect for the Roman Catholic tradition. But David’s article didn’t resonate with me.
Firstly, David is free to make his own assessment of Calvin as a person. I don’t agree with everything Calvin said, and especially the way he said it. However, there are two problems with what David says about Calvin. Firstly, Calvin’s rhetoric was a standard of his time. Roman Catholics like Cajetan, Eck, and Bellarmine were just as bad, if not worse. Each generation has it’s cultural blinkers, and we must be very careful to sit in judgement on other generations being blind to our own biases. Secondly, David may not like Calvin as a person (I don’t agree with his evaluation), but Calvin pales into insignificance compared to say, the Renaissance Popes or the ninth and tenth century Papacy. Calvin never claimed to be head of the church unlike the Papacy. The idea that immoral Popes are still by office the mouthpiece of God is something with which I greatly struggle (especially considering what the NT has to say about teachers who are immoral).
Secondly, I don’t recognise the Protestantism of David. I’ve never been taught or ever thought that a pure evangelicalism was to be found in the early church, or that there’s been some pure stream of it until the reformation. Moreover, I also don’t find the Roman Catholic church in the early church either. The 7 sacraments were absent, prays to the saints, the papacy was very different etc. etc. And John Henry Newman’s explanation of doctrinal development is gratuitously a priori. Both Reformed and Roman Catholics who post on this forum have very idealised understandings of church history. It would do well for both sides to recognise this. For me, the strong point of evangelicalism is that it recognises that not all Christian teachings are of the same importance, indeed it is critical to recognise that there are teachings believers are free over which to disagree (1 Cor. 5; Rom. 14-15). This is how unity is found, in recognising what’s most important and what’s negotiable. It is this that both extremely Reformed folk and certain Roman Catholics fail to recognise, and hence it produces extreme claims and rhetoric from both sides, with an unwilling to listen to each side.
Pro : David Anders
[quote]Calvin understood baptism in much the same way. He never taught the Evangelical doctrine that one is “born again” through personal conversion. Instead, he associated regeneration with baptism and taught that to neglect baptism was to refuse salvation[/quote]
Can you give me the reference for your statements above? Institutes book number ? Chapeter number ?
Bobby, responding to your post #396: See this interview with Dr. David Anders and Fr. Mitch Pacwa:
EWTN Live – Protestant Theology – Fr. Mitch Pacwa, S.J. with David Anders
There is a discussion between minutes 8:36 -14:45 that answers why Dr. Anders makes the statements that you quoted.
See especially minute 11:26:
Hey Marty,
Thanks for joining in the discussion. Since no one has responded to your post yet I thought I’d offer some thoughts in response to a few select remarks.
If I understand Dr. Anders correctly, his main point is not just that Calvin’s tone was wrose. His point was that his discovery of Calvin’s attitude toward ecclesiastical authority revealed how seriously Protestantism has changed in the last 500 years, and that reading Calvin made him investigate the issues from the very beginning to see whether Calvin’s claims to intepretive authority were any more valid than the Catholic Church’s. Yes, Calvin claimed authority and the Catholic Church claimed authority. The difference is that Calvin’s claim to authority was arbitrary and internally inconsistent. He exercised his own private judgment in condemning the official teachings of the Catholic Church and causing schism, then censured others for exercising their own private judgment by disagreeing with him and causing divisions within his new church.
I think this is a good, if indirect, statement of one of the very problems that Called to Communion is trying to point out. Your Protestantism looks nothing like the Protestantism of Dr. Anders’ early life. Neither of them look like the Protestantism of my first few years as a Christian. Many people disagree with you about these points and at the end of the day, without Catholic ecclesiology, we’re left with your scholarly opinion against their scholarly (or, in most cases, completely ignorant) opinion.
Statements like this at first seem irenic, but when we look at them more closely it sounds like you’re simply saying that everyone but you has gotten it wrong. I’m not saying that you mean to come across that way, but you really are positing that there’s this one group who has an idealized position and they’re wrong, then there’s this other group with an idealized position and they’re also wrong. Then there’s you who have managed to remain calm and reasonable about the whole matter, having protected yourself from going into extremes. Yet I would assume that I wouldn’t have to go far to find someone who would say that you yourself have an idealized view of the bible and church history.
Anyway, I happen to think that the Catholic Church’s historical and theological positions are generally very moderate, realistic and carefully thought-out, especially in comparison with most evangelical models. But here we are again, back to your scholarly opinion against mine. What if I were to say, for example, that I’ll see your graduate work in Medieval Christianity and raise you my present graduate work on Patristics and Greek and Latin philology? Given that you are a scholar of the late Medieval Period, would you accept my scholarly opinion on the Patristic period or would you stick to your readings of the early Church, on which basis you have concluded that it was not “Roman” Catholic? As a Catholic, I wouldn’t actually expect you to join the Church based on just my scholarly opinions.
I think this gets to the crux of the matter. First, the Catholic Church does, in fact, believe that not all Christian teachings are of the same importance. Where you and the Catholic Church disagree is simply on how we are to disagree which teachings are of primary importance, and consequently what those teachings are. Second, although you again characterize the “other” as being extreme and stubborn, supposedly offering your own positions as the proper middle way, this comes across as a smokescreen avoiding (not necessarily consciously, as I said above) the real issues of ecclesiology and authority.
Bobby & Mateo,
Yes, I remember that the Federal Vision folk were being anathematized in the Presbyterian synods a few years ago for supposedly being at odds with the Westminster Confession of Faith even though they were defending their positions from primary sources (i.e. Calvin and others) written 100 years before the WCF was composed.
Dear David,
Thanks for your response. Here’s mine.
The difference is that Calvin’s claim to authority was arbitrary and internally inconsistent. He exercised his own private judgment in condemning the official teachings of the Catholic Church and causing schism, then censured others for exercising their own private judgment by disagreeing with him and causing divisions within his new church.
David, neither Catholic nor Protestant can escape private judgement. Catholics and Protestants both have their authoritative documents. For Protestants it is Scripture, for Catholics it is their many “official” ecclesiastical documents. Hence, I have many Catholic friends who come to all sorts of different conclusions in the way they interpret official Catholic documents. Three converts from Reformed Protestantism to Rome illustrate the point well. Scott Hahn, Bob Sungenis, and Gerry Matatics all come to very different views about the role and status of Vatican II, not an insignificant issue. All of them attempt to prove their position quoting from official Catholic documents. And whichever position you follow, that of Hahn, Sungenis, Matatics or some other position, you’re engaging in private interpretation.
I think this is a good, if indirect, statement of one of the very problems that Called to Communion is trying to point out. Your Protestantism looks nothing like the Protestantism of Dr. Anders’ early life. Neither of them look like the Protestantism of my first few years as a Christian. Many people disagree with you about these points and at the end of the day, without Catholic ecclesiology, we’re left with your scholarly opinion against their scholarly (or, in most cases, completely ignorant) opinion.
Again, you’re assuming that you don’t privately interpret official Catholic documents. The difficulty for the Roman Catholic is the doctrine of infallibility. The 1870 Vatican I definition of what constitutes an “ex cathedra” teaching doesn’t supply the exact conditions. Hence there are a multitude of theories as to which ecclesiastical statement is infallible and which isn’t. These opinions are all private interpretations. And whilst they are, one doesn’t know which documents carry what authority. If you say that an ecumenical council is infallible how do you know? Which ecclesiastical document says it? And how do you know this is an infallible document? And how do you know that you (a fallible human) have interpreted it correctly? The priest and bishop is fallible. Is humanae vitae infallible? How do you infallibly know?
Statements like this at first seem irenic, but when we look at them more closely it sounds like you’re simply saying that everyone but you has gotten it wrong. I’m not saying that you mean to come across that way, but you really are positing that there’s this one group who has an idealized position and they’re wrong, then there’s this other group with an idealized position and they’re also wrong. Then there’s you who have managed to remain calm and reasonable about the whole matter, having protected yourself from going into extremes. Yet I would assume that I wouldn’t have to go far to find someone who would say that you yourself have an idealized view of the bible and church history.
And why can’t the same be said of you? You’re judging my opinion here. Who are you to do that? How do you know that your interpretations of the infallible Catholic documents (whichever ones they are) are correct?
I think this gets to the crux of the matter. First, the Catholic Church does, in fact, believe that not all Christian teachings are of the same importance.
Well that’s your private interpretation of what the Catholic Church believes. I’ll give the opinion of another Catholic. It’s Pope Pius XI’s opinion in his encyclical Mortalium Animos (1928):
Besides this, in connection with things which must be believed, it is nowise licit to use that distinction which some have seen fit to introduce between those articles of faith which are fundamental and those which are not fundamental, as they say, as if the former are to be accepted by all, while the latter may be left to the free assent of the faithful: for the supernatural virtue of faith has a formal cause, namely the authority of God revealing, and this is patient of no such distinction.
Now of course there’s no way we can determine whether this encyclical is infallible because no infallible Roman Catholic authority has told us so. Moreover, if you interpret it differently to me, how do you know that you’re interpretation is infallibility correct given that you’re fallible?
Where you and the Catholic Church disagree is simply on how we are to disagree which teachings are of primary importance, and consequently what those teachings are.
That’s your (fallible) interpretation of what the Catholic Church believes. I have Catholic friends who think otherwise. How do you who’s right? All we have is just your opinion against theirs.
Second, although you again characterize the “other” as being extreme and stubborn, supposedly offering your own positions as the proper middle way, this comes across as a smokescreen avoiding (not necessarily consciously, as I said above) the real issues of ecclesiology and authority.
How is that you can see all my unconscious problems and I can’t? Why do you presume to hold such insight? My point is that lots of people don’t recognise that they have their own cultural and worldview blinkers. We all do. Without grasping this, people often think they can tie down every truth. There’s a lack of epistemic humility. Fallible humans can’t pin down everything; hence there needs to be focus on what’s central with a humility to recognise that we are free to disagree on less important truths. This is taught clearly in Rom. 14-15.
I find it ironic that this website is named, “Called to Communion” when the single biggest obstacle to church union (which I desire) has been the papacy especially since the 11th century. With the new the new papal claims that arose then, which deployed the forged document “The Donation of Constantine”, the church has been rent asunder ever since.
Every blessing,
Marty.
Marty:
This is not meant to pre-empt David’s reply, which I’m sure will be cogent in its own right. But I couldn’t help pointing out that most of your comment presents just one more version of what the authors of this blog call “the tu quoque objection.” You can find a response to that general argument at this C2C post. For now, a few more specific points are in order.
First, you’re equivocating on the phrase ‘private judgment’. That phrase was introduced in the mid-19th century by John Henry Newman, recently beatified by the Pope. He meant it pejoratively. Thus, private judgment is the setting up of individuals or sub-groups within the Church as judges of the Church’s orthodoxy, which is opposed to submitting to the Church as the judge of the orthodoxy of individuals or sub-groups within her. Private judgment in that sense reduces the doctrinal authority of the Church to no authority at all. But you seem to be using the phrase to mean ‘individual judgment’, without presupposing that any human agency in particular has the authority to judge the orthodoxy of the Church. That usage raises a different question.
Nobody can deny that individual interpretation of the Bible or of magisterial documents is inevitable, at least for those equipped to study them. And individuals, notoriously, disagree. So the question is not whether divergent interpretations arise, but what authority, if any, there is to adjudicate definitively among them. The difference between the Protestant and Catholic “hermeneutical paradigms” is that the latter upholds a living authority for adjudication, one that’s understood to speak with the authority of Christ himself. Conversely, people who deny there is such an authority have no way of adjudicating definitively among conflicting interpretations of texts, including and especially the Bible. Everything thus remains a matter of opinion.
To that point, Protestants who come here often object that the posited authority only pushes the problem back. For when the authority in question seeks to adjudicate among conflicting interpretations–not only of the Bible, but also of its own texts–it can only do so by issuing another text, about which the same difficulty then arises, et cetera and ad infinitum. But that objection rests on a confusion.
Nobody denies that some interpretations of expository texts, theological or otherwise, are clearer than others. To deny that would be tantamount to denying that some such texts are better than others for their main purpose, which is communicating information. And such a denial would be intellectual suicide. But once we’ve got a relatively clear interpretation of a given text, the question remains whether it is also correct. Sometimes, a relatively clear interpretation is incorrect, and a relatively unclear interpretation is correct, or at least would be shown correct upon due clarification of the author’s intent. The advantage of the Catholic HP is that it posits an authority for determining definitively which relatively clear interpretations–whether of Scripture and Tradition, or of its own texts, or both–are correct. Sometimes the resulting “clarifications” are not as clear as we’d like. But that doesn’t rule out increasing clarity over time–which is exactly what the Magisterium does. For that task can only be performed by a living authority with divine authority. Otherwise, no matter how clear a given individual or sub-group’s interpretation may be or fail to be, there would be no way to decide definitively, with divine authority, which is correct–and which is thus binding on the faithful as a true expression of divine revelation.
Our argument is that, absent such an authority, we would be left unable to distinguish, in a principled way, between interpretations that are merely human opinions and interpretations that a true expressions of divine revelation that call for the assent of faith as distinct from opinion. That is the argument you need to address as a Protestant. The tu quoque argument you have offered does not do so.
Best,
Mike
Dear Mike,
The advantage of the Catholic HP is that it posits an authority for determining definitively which relatively clear interpretations–whether of Scripture and Tradition, or of its own texts, or both–are correct.
How do you know that? Which infallible authority tells you this?
Marty.
Marty:
The fundamental issue between Catholicism and Protestantism is whether there is any visible ecclesial authority which God has promised to preserve from doctrinal error under certain conditions. The former affirms that there is; the latter denies it. But if there is such an authority, than that is an article of faith, not of reason. So the question how I “know” there is such an authority is unhelpful as formulated. All it does is raise a further question: what counts as “knowing” when the object of “knowledge” is a tenet of faith as distinct from human reason? The same question arises for any article of faith, such as the content, inspiration, or inerrancy of the Scriptural canon.
A more helpful question would be this: what reasons, if any, are there to prefer the Catholic HP to the Protestant, or vice-versa? I answer that question on my own blog. If you want to respond to that argument, I suggest you do so there. That way we won’t hijack this thread any further.
Best,
Mike
Marty said:
“If you say that an ecumenical council is infallible how do you know? Which ecclesiastical document says it?”
Now you may disagree, but the Councils claim divine infallible authority for themselves. This is unquestionably evidential to the fact that the church did not embrace Sola Scriptura.
Letter of 6th Ecumenical Council to Pope Agatho:
“therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. Therefore to you, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect”……
“…not thus, O venerable and sacred head, have we been taught, we who hold Christ, the Lord of the universe, to be both benign and man-loving in the highest degree”……
“Thus, illuminated by the Holy Spirit, and instructed by your doctrine, we have cast forth the vile doctrines of impiety”……
“Thereupon, therefore, the grace of the Holy Spirit shone upon us, displaying his power, through your assiduous prayers, for the uprooting of all weeds and every tree which brought not forth good fruit, and giving command that they should be consumed by fire. And we all agree both in heart and tongue, and hand, and have put forth, by the assistance of the life-giving Spirit, a definition, clean from all error, certain, and infallible”
It is important, I think, for Catholics to be upfront about the fact that respected and esteemed Catholic theologians disagree on many theological questions. They disagree on the interpretation of magisterial decisions and documents. Pope John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis is a perfect case. What is its authority? Does it qualify as an irreformable definition? If yes, why? If not, why? The mere assertion of authoritative decision does not make it so.
I personally believe that the strongest response the Catholic can make to this kind of objection, when all is aid, is that we trust Peter. In the end, we want to be in his Church.
I believe that an Eastern Orthodox might say something similar: in the end we want to be with the Church of St Basic and St Maximos.
It’s not about legalistic one-up-man-ship. It’s all about the communities to which you finally entrust your lifes. The Vicars of St Peter certainly have a claim upon us, as do the ancient sees of the East. f
You pays your money and takes your chances.
What do you do if the Pope is a heretic? I mean Irenaeus had to call a Pope out for heresy. Was that Pope infallible?
Jason,
Generally speaking, the doctrine of papal infallibility does not require us to imagine the impossibility of a Pope committing egregious sins or personally holding heretical views. As it was defined at Vatican 1, the teaching is that a pope is protected from error when he speaks 1) in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, 2) in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority and 3) he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church.
As for the case with Irenaeus to which you refer, could you be more specific?
I agree with this.
But I have to disagree with this. I believe there is a rational aspect to faith. I believe there is strong evidence for the reliability of the scriptures, for the existence of a man named Jesus, and for his death and resurrection as proof of his being the Son of God. It is “faith” but I believe my faith rests on good evidence, not just something grasped at blindly.
I think this totally misses the point. The issue isn’t what we “prefer”, the issue is truth. The Jews would have “preferred” a kingly messiah to rescue them from Roman rule, instead they got a suffering messiah to rescue them from sin. God often acts unexpectedly, in ways that we would not agree with if we were “running the show”. To say we choose on which we would “prefer” I think would be a grave mistake. Truth should be our guide, not what we “prefer”.
See here is the rub. Authority/infallibility is the cudgel that Catholics beat Protestants over the head with again and again (but only lovingly, right? :) ). Yet what good is it if the church can’t/won’t answer the questions like that above? Infallibility sounds great from a theoretical point of view, but as seen above, it seems to have very little practical significance.
If Catholics can’t produce a list of infallible doctrines, documents, papal pronouncements, etc., (and as noted above, they don’t seem able to do so, and disagree over which are and which aren’t) then what good is infallibility? You sound like a bunch of Protestants, only rather arguing over the interpretation of scripture, you argue about the which pronouncements, documents, etc are infallible and how to interpret them.
If nothing else, just this: IF there is to be a visible, unified, catholic and apostolic church, is there any other remotely plausible claimant for this title besides the RCC? (The Orthodox have all of this except catholicity; other than them, NO church has any remotely plausible claim to ANY of these credentials.) If it’s suggested that that’s not enough, then I suspect that the Protestant notion that orthodoxy trumps orthopraxy is at play here, and moreover that orthodoxy is defined by an *individual*’s adherence to certain doctrines (and defining orthodoxy with the *individual* as final epistemic arbiter is the *real* problem). But if there’s no question about where the Church is to be found today, simply on the basis of the faithful transmission of the sacraments and holy orders (the orthopraxy of apostolicity), whence the worry in the first place that one is going to seriously fall afoul of orthodoxy?
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in fact issued at least a partial list, in a commentary on the profession of faith that is required of certain Church officials. An unofficial translation of the document can be found here: https://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm.
And, as a matter of fact, it declares the doctrine set forth in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to have been infallibly defined by the ordinary universal magisterium.
I’m sure Dr. Liccione will be able to provide more details on this point, since it is one of his specialties.
@ Steve G (#409):
I’ve heard this argument before and even as a Protestant it puzzles me. Unless we’re the most severe kind of skeptics, the mere fact that Catholics disagree about which pronouncements are infallible doesn’t mean that there is no fact of the matter “out there” about the question, nor does it entail that Catholics and Protestants are in the same epistemic boat at all. Anyone can disagree about anything – the question is whether or not the dispute is tractable or intractable. The question of whether X is an infallible pronouncement is clearly tractable – if it’s got something like “If anyone believes that P, let him be anathema” in it, it’s de fide. Most of the disputes I’ve been able to turn up are questions of counting. For example, Trent’s de fide proclamations repeated some things that earlier councils had also decided. You then get scholarly disputes about whether to count that as one or two proclamations, but still, it’s not like there’s this massive epistemic uncertainty about whether either one of them was or wasn’t de fide.
Returning to the issue of tractability, that’s at least one area where our Catholic brethren have us beat hands down. Let’s say that there is some massive disagreement about what X teaches (set your X to be a papal proclamation or the Bible, depending on whether we’re in Catholic Land or Protestant World…) If it’s a Papal proclamation, there’s a place to go to get a definitive answer, and if there is still uncertainty it can be clarified yet again, etc. If we’re over in Protestant land, and there is a huge disagreement about something important (say, the sacraments,) where should I turn to? The pastor of the church I chose to attend? Why him rather than another pastor down the street? Some theological experts (which are, quite frankly, all over the place?) It doesn’t intrinsically make the Catholic position right, but at least it puts their disputes within a tractable realm that Protestants can only dream of…
I’ve taught logic, so I found myself puzzling over how one might construct an infallible list of infallible documents. :-) Maybe one writes up a document saying “Documents A, B, C…F are infallible.” Of course, that does no good if that document itself is not infallible. Let’s call this document G. So now we need another infallible document to tell us that G is infallible. Call that one H…but H might be fallible, so we need another de fide proclamation that H isn’t fallible. You can see where the paradox is going – for the burden you propose to be met, an infinitely long chain of infallible documents would need to be produced. Something somewhere along the line (perhaps including my own reasoning) is borked up if the burden we hold Catholics to is the creation of an infinitely long chain. Random musings of a tired mind… :-)
Look forward to talking with you more, Steve. There’s a lot of nice folk around here, and we’d love to have your participation in these and future conversations. :-)
Sincerely,
Benjamin
You have Catholic friends that interpret official Church documents differently – there is nothing unusual about that. They probably interpret scriptures differently too. But are any of your Catholic friends claiming that they are the final and authoritative interpreters of the doctrines of the faith as taught through either the scriptures or the official documents of the Magisterium? Your friends that are practicing Catholics would say that my interpretation of the scriptures and the official documents of the Magisterium is my best understanding, but I defer to the Magisterium of the church as having the final say in any matter involving faith or morals. Practicing Catholics that know their faith understand that under no circumstance can they found their own personal churches that teaches doctrine contrary to the Magisterium of Christ’s church.
On the other hand, if you have friends are not practicing Catholics, but are instead only nominal Catholics (Catholics in name only), they might indeed reject that the Magisterium has the final say in matters of faith and morals. The issue that you are raising is about the final interpretive authority within Christ’s church, and no practicing Catholic that knows his faith would ever claim that he is the final interpretive authority within the church on matters involving faith or morals.
Luther and Calvin are protestors against the claim that final interpretive authority resides within the church founded by Christ. Luther and Calvin claimed that they personally had the final interpretive authority within the churches that they personally founded. But there is no scriptural basis for founding one’s own church, and there is no scriptural basis for belonging to a church founded by a mere man. Quite the contrary, the scriptures teach that Christians must listen to the church that Christ founded, and if they refuse to listen to his church, they are to be excommunicated from his church: … if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Matt 18:17
There are, of course, topics that theologians legitimately debate within the Catholic Church, and that debate can be useful for clarifying matters of faith and morals. But esteemed theologians don’t necessarily have any authority to definitively define doctrines of the faith. The authority to definitively define doctrines resides with the living Magisterium, and only validly ordained bishops comprise the living Magisterium.
The beauty of having a living Magisterium is that one can always ask a living human being that has teaching authority within Christ’s church for a clarification of a document such as the Apostolic Letter On Reserving Priestly Ordination to Men Alone Ordinatio Sacerdolatis.
Such a clarification is called a responsum ad dubium. The lay Catholic is never in a position where he must become the ultimate and final interpreter of church doctrine. If the layman has questions about a matter of doctrine, he can always seek clarification from the teaching office of Christ’s church until he is satisfied that he understands the doctrine.
Cardinal Ratzinger, as the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, gave such a response to John Paul II’s Ordinatio Sacerdotalis: Responsum ad Dubium Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis. Furthermore, Cardinal Ratzinger wrote a letter concerning that particular responsum ad dubium that answers the questions that you ask concerning the authority of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
The text of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis addresses the teaching of the church only men can receive the Sacrament of Ordination, and states that this teaching is not just a matter of church discipline; it is a matter of the faith; i.e. this teaching of the faith “has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary universal Magisterium.” Since this teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium is infallible, it is irrevocable (or irreformable to use your term).
The letter quoted above states, “In this case [the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis], an act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium, in itself not infallible, witnesses to the infallibility of the teaching of a doctrine already possessed by the Church”
In other words, the promulgation of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not an extraordinary exercise of the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff; i.e. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was not a Papal ex cathedra promulgation of a new dogma. The publication of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was an “act of the ordinary Papal Magisterium”, a teaching that was given to all the faithful of the church as a Papal affirmation of an existing infallible dogma, and “all members of the faithful are required to give their assent to the teaching stated therein.”
The whole point of writing Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was to clear up the confusion that some Catholics had about why the Sacrament of Ordination was not given to women. Some Catholics thought that the church practice of reserving the Sacrament of Ordination to men only was a matter of church discipline, and not a matter of church doctrine. Since all matters of church discipline are, in principle, reformable, some Catholics were agitating for a change in church discipline.
Ordinatio Sacerdotalis clears up the confusion in this matter – reserving the Sacrament of Ordination to men alone is a matter of Church doctrine, not Church discipline. The fact that there are still some Catholics agitating for women ordination shows only two things. That some Catholics are either ignorant of the fact that it is an infallible teaching of the faith that women can never receive the Sacrament of Ordination; or it shows that the dissenters do in fact understand the ordinary and universal Magisterium has taught that this is an infallible teaching – and they don’t care. They don’t care because they are de facto Protestants and they protest along with Luther and Calvin against the Scriptures and Tradition that proclaim that the Magisterium of Christ’s church has final say in matters of faith and morals.
It is an infallible doctrine of the Catholic Church that all the scriptures found within in a Protestant bible are inerrant because they are all “God breathed”.
Could any Protestant provide me a list of every possible inerrant doctrine that can be derived from a Protestant bible? No Protestant could do that, nor is it reasonable for me to expect a Protestant to provide me with such a list, since the list would be nearly infinite. What is the limit of the depths to which scripture can be plumbed? There is no limit to be found by men residing on this earth. Since it is not reasonable for me to expect Protestants to provide a list of every conceivable doctrine of faith and morals, it is also not reasonable for Protestants to demand Catholics to provide such a list.
It is, however, a quite reasonable thing for a person inquiring about Christianity to expect that a particular Protestant denomination provide to him a list of some the most important and fundamental doctrines that that the Protestant denomination professes. And there is the rub. If any particular Protestant denomination provides such a list, it is also possible to find a different Protestant denomination that will refutes any particular doctrines that might be found on that list.
The doctrinal division that is rampant within Protestantism is a scandal that hinders the spreading of the Gospel to an unbelieving world. If Christians cannot agree what the doctrines of Christianity are, then why would anyone outside of Christianity give Christians any credibility at all?
Gentlemen,
I have interacted with this sort of notion on several occasions. One central problem in this discussion is the implicit notion that divine revelation, or the “deposit of faith”, is essentially propositional. It is not at all evident that such is the case. No doubt, our communication with one another, whether verbal or written, must be expressed propositionally. In so far as each of us must individually extract the intended meaning from propositional expressions, there is no avoiding a certain degree of subjectivity – that is the nature of finite intellection. However, as Benjamin has said, it would be the worst kind of skepticism to suggest that meaning simply cannot be extracted from propositions OR that propositional expressions of communicated truths cannot achieve an increasing level of clarity over time. The fact that each of us successfully function in the world is predicated on the notion that we “understand” each other in day to day activity – with some level of aptitude. The advance of the empirical sciences is exhibit-A that increasing clarity can be gained through interactive dialogue over time – even over centuries of time.
Ask yourself what it actually means to “know” an article of faith such as the doctrine of the Trinity. You have a proposition (God is three Persons subsisting in one nature) which points to an active, living, reality but does not fully “reveal” it. The proposition simply points the finite, subjective, intellect of the believer to a reality he had not considered before. But given our intellectual finitude, and the progressive “building-block” nature of human knowledge; there is absolutely no way that an expressible proposition can constitute some sort of holistic, comprehensive, grasp of the ontic reality of God in Himself (that would be the beatific vision form a Catholic POV). The truth is that out intellectual comprehension, even of mundane things, is necessarily revisable and subjective. For instance, we can express many propositions about a tree. Such propositions do tell us a lot about trees; enough to enable us to utilize and manipulate them in a wide variety of ways. Still, the knowledge we have of trees (biological, molecular, chemical, etc. etc.) was gained over long periods of time, increased in clarity over time, AND required that each successive generation embrace and stand upon the knowledge gains made in times prior. Most of our knowledge of trees is based on authority, not personal investigation; in fact, the vast majority of our knowledge is “improper” rather than “proper” knowledge. Nowhere is this more truly the case than with the articles of faith.
For instance, additional, more precise, propositions which are implicitly entailed in the notion of God’s Trinitarian subsistence can be formulated to achieve further human clarity on this divine topic. BUT, given the progressive nature of human knowing, this clarification process must go on till the eschaton. Hence, from the side of the “believer”, one’s grasp or comprehension of revealed truths will ALWAYS admit of the possibility of deeper and clearer understandings. This is the epistemic basis for the fact (yes fact) of doctrinal development. What happens through Christian history within the Church, also happens within each of our personal histories. The living, existential, presence of God the Holy Spirit progressively clarifies and expands our comprehension of God’s revelation which just is Jesus Christ – the logos of creation, second Person of the Trinity. He (the HS) does this in a progressive, propositional, way because that is how we gain knowledge in this life. In the course of time, and according to God’s knowledge of the needs of His Church, the Holy Spirit supervenes upon her ambassadors such that a new proposition (or set of propositions) emerges with reference to some point of God’s revelation if Christ (“He will guide you into all truth”); in order that increased clarity and comprehension may accrue to his people. The Church too, given the very nature of acquired human knowledge, must gain understanding and comprehension in a “building-block” fashion. Such a process is intrinsic to the very idea of “salvation history”.
The fact that the covenant people, now Christ’s body – the Church – constitute an ongoing, trans-historical family means that these propositional expressions – protected by the Holy Spirit – can have a cumulative, clarifying effect so that each new generation begins with a deeper understanding of the Christian mysteries than the one that proceeded it. Nonetheless, since it is the same Spirit clarifying the same revelation (Jesus Christ), there is an intrinsic continuity among all these progressive, historically embedded propositions such that the later, more precise, propositions were always implicit or contained within the earlier, less precise, definitions. Given this dynamic picture of divine revelation in relation to a finite acquisition of knowledge; the essential question is NOT how the believing subject “knows” divine revelation – he will always know “subjectively”. The essential question that must be answered is this: “where is the seat within human history – if any – which serves as the locus from which the Spirit guided propositional expressions of divine revelation emerge so as to dynamically interact with finite human subjects in each successive generation”?
So I ask (what I think rarely gets asked): what exactly IS the “deposit of faith”? What, precisely, did God “deposit” into human history? This is the fundamental point at which the Protestant and Catholic macro notions of divine revelation part ways IMO. The notion of sola scriptura, entailing a strictly textual basis for revelation, naturally lends itself to an unreflective embrace of the idea of the “deposit of faith” as a large set of written propositions dumped by God into the lap of humanity. Such a notion will almost certainly be antagonistic to the type of dynamic, interactive scenario I described above, because it fears that such dynamism will threaten to corrupt an initial set of, clear, pristine propositions. This is why my Protestant brothers so often try to insist that precise definitions emerging from councils like Nicaea or Chalcedon are necessarily “clear or plain” from the scriptural texts themselves. I simply think this view is unsupportable given both the history and the hermeneutical assumptions which must be adopted to defend that thesis. In any case, the nature of finite human knowledge entails that expressible propositions will always require interpretation so that some form of dynamism in relation to divine revelation is simply unavoidable. The truth is that we, as finite human subjects, are unavoidably in a certain dynamic relationship to divine revelation. We are in process of increasing our apprehension of the same.
The Catholic position fully recognizes this fact. The Catholic notion of the “deposit of faith” is rather a living, dynamic deposit. What God principally achieved in delivering the final revelation of Christ as “once for all delivered to the saints”, was the establishment of a LIVING body, the mystical body of Christ as a visible historical reality against which the gates of hell shall not prevail. The Church is a historical reality which continues the “real world” ministry of the Incarnation in her sacraments (healing, forgiving, etc) and authoritative teaching. This is what Catholics see Christ doing when he conveys His authority to his disciples to perform miracles, forgive sins, and authoritatively teach in his name. It is especially what Catholics see Christ doing when He promises to send the Holy Spirit after His ascension. On the day of Pentecost the Church is supernaturally animated as a new, living, historical reality. The Church IS the deposit of Jesus Christ in the world, animated by the sending of the Holy Spirit who continually communicates Christ to His people and to all mankind. Since she is a living deposit, given for our benefit; the Church naturally communicates God’s truth to us in a way that is humanly understandable – i.e. propositionally expressible. Hence, it is no surprise that one of the first gifts to emerge from the Church are the sacred writings of her founders. The scriptures are a written heirloom of the living family of God. They are the Churches’ family memoirs or letters. They have both a human and divine element because the Church from which they arose has been constituted as both human and divine. But, the texts, themselves, are NOT the essential deposit, though they become part of that deposit by derivation. They arise from the more fundamental deposit of the living Christ in the Church itself. The Church is living and trans-historical. Hence, guided by the Holy Spirit, she is able to offer an increasingly clarified, “building-block” understanding of Christ-revealed to each successive generation.
The bishops as successors of the apostles represent the mechanism within the Church by which the Holy Spirit brings forth such clarifying propositions as need arises. The successor of Peter is the unifying principle among the bishops. Hence, for Catholics, the seat within human history which serves as the absolute locus and center from which the Spirit guided propositional expressions of divine revelation emerges is the seat of Peter. By the very nature of the case (as I described above) the propositions which emerge from this source will always remain in an interactive, dynamic, relationship with the finite intellects of believers in each generation. Hence, the “understanding” of such propositions on the part of the believer will always be developing from cradle to grave. However, for Catholics, that “understanding” always progresses in relation to the infallible source or locus of divine teaching authority – the successors to Peter and the apostles. Moreover, since the successors to Peter and the apostles, themselves, represent a dynamic, ongoing, trans-historical body; the propositions which they express under the guidance of the Holy Spirit are always open to further authoritative clarification by that same body in time to come. In this way BOTH the individual in his historical moment AND the entire Church in her history, grow together in an increasing understanding and comprehension of the final revelation of Jesus Christ.
The problem of doctrinal relativism is not overcome by Christians somehow attaining a complete intellectual comprehension of all aspects of divine truth (a current impossibility); but rather by placing the believer into a certain dynamic theological relationship with Christ’s body, the Church; and in particular, with that essential aspect of her unity and authority grounded in the person of Peter and his successors. That is what it means to be “in communion with Rome”. The Catholic shares the human necessity of individual dynamic subjectivity with his Protestant brother. The difference is that the Catholic’s individual fallibility and subjectivity are oriented towards, or “subject to”, a living, dynamic, locus of divine authority which is always capable of clarifying or correcting the individual’s theological grasp of divine revelation. This orientation, as an ongoing relationship to the Church, not only prevents the individual’s faith from running off the rails into strange theological waters; it also provides the believer with an increasingly rich storehouse of expressions and concepts by which to better understand the living deposit of faith once for all delivered to the saints. I will stop with a snippet I wrote along these very lines in dialogue with an Eastern Orthodox brother:
I Hope that some of the above ads a dimension to the discussion. It seems to me that we at least need to get clear on how we understand “the deposit of faith” and our individual relation to it.
Pax et Bonum,
Ray
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.i.html
Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies
[a.d. 120–202.] This history introduces us to the Church in her Western outposts. We reach the banks of the Rhone, where for nearly a century Christian missions have flourished. Between Marseilles and Smyrna there seems to have been a brisk trade, and Polycarp had sent Pothinus into Celtic Gaul at an early date as its evangelist. He had fixed his see at Lyons, when Irenæus joined him as a presbyter, having been his fellow-pupil under Polycarp. There, under the “good Aurelius,” as he is miscalled (a.d. 177), arose the terrible persecution which made “the martyrs of Lyons and Vienne” so memorable. It was during this persecution that Irenæus was sent to Rome with letters of remonstrance against the rising pestilence of heresy; and he was probably the author of the account of the sufferings of the martyrs which is appended to their testimony.26492649 Eusebius, book v. to the twenty-seventh chapter, should be read as an introduction to this author. But he had the mortification of finding the Montanist heresy patronized by Eleutherus the Bishop of Rome; and there he met an old friend from the school of Polycarp, who had embraced the Valentinian heresy. We cannot doubt that to this visit we owe the lifelong struggle of Irenæus against the heresies that now came in, like locusts, to devour the harvests of the Gospel. But let it be noted here, that, so far from being “the mother and mistress” of even the Western Churches, Rome herself is a mission of the Greeks;26502650 Milman, Hist. Latin Christianity, b. i. pp. 27, 28, and the notes. Southern Gaul is evangelized from Asia Minor, and Lyons checks the heretical tendencies of the Bishop at Rome. Ante-Nicene Christianity, and indeed the Church herself, appears in Greek costume which lasts through the synodical period; and Latin Christianity, when it begins to appear, is African, and not Roman. It is strange that those who have recorded this great historical fact have so little perceived its bearings upon Roman pretensions in the Middle Ages and modern times.
Returning to Lyons, our author found that the venerable Pothinus had closed his holy career by a martyr’s death; and naturally Irenæus became his successor. When the emissaries of heresy followed him, and began to disseminate their licentious practices and foolish doctrines by the aid of “silly women,” the great work of his life began. He condescended to study these diseases of the human mind like a wise physician; and, sickening as was the process of classifying and describing them, he made this also his laborious task, that he might enable others to withstand and to overcome them. The works he has left us are monuments of his fidelity to Christ, and to the charges of St. Paul, St. Peter, and St. Jude, whose solemn warnings now proved to be prophecies. No marvel that the great apostle, “night and day with tears,” had forewarned the churches of “the grievous wolves” which were to make havoc of the fold.
If it shocks the young student of the virgin years of Christianity to find such a state of things, let him reflect that it was all foretold by Christ himself, and demonstrates the malice and power of the adversary. “An enemy hath done this,” said the Master. The spirit that was then working 310 “in the children of disobedience,” now manifested itself. The awful visions of the Apocalypse began to be realized. It was now evident in what sense “the Prince of peace” had pronounced His mission, “not peace, but a sword.” In short, it became a conspicuous fact, that the Church here on earth is “militant;” while, at the same time, there was seen to be a profound philosophy in the apostolic comment,26512651 1 Cor. xi. 19. “There must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest.” In the divine economy of Providence it was permitted that every form of heresy which was ever to infest the Church should now exhibit its essential principle, and attract the censures of the faithful. Thus testimony to primitive truth was secured and recorded: the language of catholic orthodoxy was developed and defined, and landmarks of faith were set up for perpetual memorial to all generations. It is a striking example of this divine economy, that the see of Rome was allowed to exhibit its fallibility very conspicuously at this time, and not only to receive the rebukes of Irenæus, but to accept them as wholesome and necessary; so that the heresy of Eleutherus, and the spirit of Diotrephes in Victor, have enabled reformers ever since, and even in the darkest days of pontifical despotism, to testify against the manifold errors patronized by Rome. Hilary and other Gallicans have been strengthened by the example of Irenæus, and by his faithful words of reproof and exhortation, to resist Rome, even down to our own times.
Ray,
What an interesting post. I am reminded of Ignatius of Antioch’s interaction with the sola scriptura practitioners of his own day:
“I was doing my part, therefore, acting as a man trained to cherish unity. Where there is division and passion, there is no place for God. Now, the Lord forgives all if they change their mind and by this change of mind return to union with God and to the council of the bishop. I trust in the grace of Jesus Christ, who will free you from all enslavement. I exhort you never to act in a spirit of factiousness, but according to what you learnt in the school of Christ. When I heard some say “Unless I find it in the official records — in the Gospel I will not believe”; and when I answered them “It is in the Scriptures,” they retorted: “That is just the point at issue.” But to me the official record is Jesus Christ; the inviolable record is His Cross and His death and His Resurrection and the faith of which He is the Author. These are the things which, thanks to your prayer, I want to be my justification.”
To Ignatius of Antioch, the official record is Jesus Christ. It is Christ that has been given to us. The scriptures come along with him, but He is greater than they are. It isn’t “me and my bible.” It’s me and Christ, and Christ and all of us. The way to deal with people who say they won’t believe unless they find it in the scriptures isn’t Ignatius’ first approach (“It is in the scriptures”) but his beautiful and touching second approach: “But to me the official record is Jesus Christ; the inviolable record is His Cross and His death and His Resurrection and the Faith of which He is the Author.” And we all know that for him, as for all the saints, a necessary condition of being close to Christ was to accept the council of the bishops. The faith is not a set of propositions. It is a living relationship with Christ. And that living relationship comes from praying before the one altar and partaking of the one Eucharist, under the one Bishop, as Ignatius so frequently said.
Sincerely,
K. Doran
Steve G (#408):
Please forgive my delay in replying; it’s been a few days since I’ve had time enough to look at this thread. I see comments that have done a good job of rebutting some of the usual epistemological objections to the Catholic doctrine of infallibility, and I’ll have something to say about those if need arises. For now, I just want to point out that you have largely misunderstood to you my previous reply to you.
First, I had written:
You objected:
Now for one thing, I entirely agree that there is “a rational aspect to faith.” Truth cannot contradict truth; so, the truths of divine revelation, which are apprehended by faith, cannot contradict truths discoverable by reason alone. Moreover, truths of faith and truths of reason form a whole by which the truth about humanity and its place in the scheme of things can be grasped far better than it could be by reason alone. And perhaps most pertinent to this discussion, it is both possible and salutary for believers to have, and give, “reasons for the hope” that is in us (1 Peter 3:15).
At the same time, however, the truths of faith cannot be established or demonstrated by reason alone; if they could be, they would be truths of reason, not of faith, so that we wouldn’t need divine revelation and grace to assent to them. Accordingly, the function of “reasons” for believing the truths of faith is to show that there is better reason to make the assent of faith than not. That is what the discipline of “apologetics” is for, and it’s an important discipline. But let us not imagine that apologetics can demonstrate the truths that are knowable only be divine revelation, as if there were a knockdown argument for them that relied only on premises knowable by reason alone. That would be to deny the very nature of the assent of faith. All apologetics can do is present reasons that support faith, by showing that faith is reasonable and cannot be refuted by “rational” arguments. That’s because the assent of faith is a divine gift, not something compelled by a chain of reasoning.
Second, I had written:
You objected:
What you’ve done there is zero in on my use of the word ‘prefer’, as if I thought preference were entirely a matter of subjective inclination or fancy. But you simply ignored the fact that I asked what reasons there are to prefer the Catholic to the Protestant HP. That is an objective matter. My argument is not that preferring the Catholic to the Protestant HP is a matter of subjective inclination or fancy, but that there’s an objectively better reason to adopt the former than the latter.
For present purposes, the most important such reason is the argument I developed in the blog post of mine to which I linked you. You have not addressed that argument. If you did, we’d have my actual position to discuss, not what you mistakenly think is my position.
Best,
Mike
@417
“But to me the official record is Jesus Christ; the inviolable record is His Cross and His death and His Resurrection and the faith of which He is the Author. These are the things which, thanks to your prayer, I want to be my justification.”
I agree with this 100%. However the rest ignors Jesus’ own view of Scripture, nor does it do anything the disprove Sola Scriptura. In fact it sounds like Ignatius was fighting against SOLO scriptura rather than SOLA scriptura. That would be another point I would agree on. Of course I know most here refuse to make the distinction. Just as most seem to not recognize the distinction between Law and Gospel.
Michael,
I read your blog post and I’m afraid it doesn’t address my argument either :) The point of your blog post seems to be that there are, for lack of a better word on my part, “philosophical” reasons to prefer the Catholic HP to the Protestant one. For as you said in your blog:
However, that really doesn’t deal with the “truth” of the issue. The real question as has been agreed is:
That’s an historical question, not a philosophical one. As I noted earlier, the issue is not what we “prefer” (for philosophical reasons) but what is the truth. Did God ordain a visible ecclesial authority or not? If God didn’t establish such an authority, then your points about the preferable HP are irrelevant. The issue isn’t philosophical preference but historical fact. So as you put it to me, you have not really addressed my issue.
Jason said:
…good thing, that, since apparently there is now no one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church to be found anywhere on the face of the Earth (if the self-appointed “Reformers” are to be believed). So you’re guaranteed a job until the end of time.
It is just this mindset that gives any credence at all to a Joseph Smith who comes along and says “Oh, what a sad state of affairs! Of course the Catholic Church is all completely corrupt, but Protestant chaos is surely not the solution! Oh, but look – I have another gospel, on these gold plates that I can’t show you and that were entirely unknown from time immemorial until now, but at least it will let you start over with a clean slate with a church you can trust (really, trust me)!”
Jason,
Re: your post # 416 and your quote from the Introductory Note to Irenæus Against Heresies
I followed the link that you gave to the Calvin College website that maintains the Christian Classics Ethereal Library
The Introductory Note that you quoted from was written by “Philip Schaff – (1819-1893), German-American theologian and church historian”
From Wikipedia, I found this information about Philip Schaff:
Reformed history professor Phillip Schaff had the laudable desire to see Christian unity, but he desired that unity at the expense of something he disliked, namely, Papal infallibility. Was Phillip Schaff biased in his reading of Irenæus? Perhaps so.
Instead of just quoting Schaff’s commentary on Irenæus, could you provide a direct quote from Irenæus concerning the alleged heresy of Eleutherus, the Bishop of Rome?
@Jason #416,
I own the entire 38 volume set of Patristic writings compiled and edited by Phillip Schaff et al., to which you link over on the Calvin College site. I have read from it for years. Schaff and his fellow editors are notorious for spinning a heavy anti-catholic gloss in every Introduction and footnote where such an opportunity is even remotely justifiable. At times the naked level of theological bias is almost embarrasing from any scholarly POV. You might consider sticking with the actual text rather than loading too much apologetic weight upon historical polemics whose veracity are very much in question these days. For instance, the introduction you quote employs a hermenutical and offensively polemical approach which portrays the historical situation as follows:
Such remarks would make any professional propagandist proud. Indeed, a central goal discernable throughout the introduction is to link events together in such a way as to insinuate the commission of formal heresy by pope Eleutherus so that the author can present the thus maligned pope as a springboard which has “enabled reformers ever since, even in the darkest days of pontifical despotism, to testify against the manifold errors patronized by Rome.” Hard to imagine a more elegant and noble refrain emmenating from the lips of objective scholars eh? But what evidence has the author of the introduction put forward in support of the pope’s fallibility and heresy? The author offers the following:
Hummm. That does not exactly sound like clear evidence of Eleutherus teaching Montanism. What does the author mean by patronizing? Is it possible that Eleutherus, supposing he were the universal shepard of the Church, might choose to remain in dialouge with various persons who are tending toward various heretical notions in order to bring pastoral correction and reunion? Might this be viewed as patronizing? If indeed Irenaeus felt scandalized by Eleutherus’ pastoral toleration of schismatic persons, was Irenaeus himself correct in this judgement? Well, it is all guess work for both myself and Schaff, 19 or 20 centuries removed from the events. Hence the importance of ignoring such conjectures and focusing instead upon the source texts themselves. So here are some source texts which certainly seem to convey a very different notion of the whole affair than is gathered from Schaff’s introduction.
From Eusebius:
from Irenaeus himself:
Is it possible that there might be another side to this story??
Pax et Bonum,
Ray
Steve #420:
Your reply indicates, among other things, that you have not understood what I mean by ‘hermeneutical paradigm’. I’ve explained my use of that phrase before on both this site and my own, but apparently you haven’t seen those explanations. So now I’ll provide one again, and use it that to rebut your central point.
A hermeneutical paradigm is a comprehensive system for interpreting a set of data. For instance, the Lutheran HP involves taking a certain view of justification as the interpretive key for reading Paul, and then interpreting and other writings in the New Testament by means of that key. Now in the case we’re discussing, the raw data are indeed “historical.” And the question about them is this: given all the historical evidence available to us–what we now call the canon of Scripture, other documents from the early Church such as the Didache and the letters of Clement and Ignatius, the writings of other early Church Fathers and their opponents, corroborating archeological evidence, traditions handed down from the early centuries, and the various doctrinal developments among ecclesial bodies calling themselves Christian –given all that data, are they better interpreted according to the Catholic or the Protestant HP? Whichever one’s answer, that answer would be one’s reason for “preferring” one HP to the other. That’s not a matter of taste, but of intellectual cogency.
Now I had written:
You objected:
Of course I agree that the question is one of “truth” not just “preference,” if one takes preference, as you insist on doing, to be a matter of taste. But the problem with your objection is its tacit assumption that what you call the “historical question” of “truth” can and should be addressed without making a rational decision for adopting one HP, as opposed to the other, for interpreting the historical data. It cannot be, and therefore should not be. For one cannot rationally decide between competing HPs merely by appeal to the very data they are meant to interpret. Further considerations are also necessary for deciding how to interpret the data. That’s because, if the raw historical data could settle what you call the question of “truth” just by themselves, there would be no need to interpret them by means of any one HP over against competing ones. The answer to the question of authority would be obvious on its face, without an interpretive key. But it isn’t at all obvious–which is why every comprehensive theology proposes some HP for interpreting the historical data I cite, and includes some account of doctrinal authority.
Indeed, more than one HP is at least rationally plausible. As I wrote in my blog post:
That is just plain fact: there can be no dispute about it. So one cannot appeal to the raw historical data by themselves in order to settle the question of doctrinal authority. The data tell us only “what various people said and did about God”; they do not tell us what God wants us to believe by means of them. So, one must look beyond them in order to settle on an HP for interpreting them as support for one account of doctrinal authority over against others.
The question then becomes what rational grounds might have for preferring one HP to others. I called those ground “philosophical,” and I supplied them. If you don’t like that label, use another to which you’re less allergic. I’m less interested in the question what label to put on my argument than in getting people to see that the argument is relevant. In this comment, I’ve explained why it’s relevant. The only question is whether it’s also sound.
In closing, I return to a curious statement you made: ” If God didn’t establish such an [infallible] authority, then your points about the preferable HP are irrelevant.” That’s incorrect. if God didn’t establish such an authority, then my argument is unsound, not “irrelevant,” and the Protestant HP is preferable. But the upshot of my argument was that, in that case, “religion reduces to a matter of opinion.”
Best,
Mike
Mateo #422
See my 423, I see we are thinking along the same lines!
Cheers,
Ray
This is, of course, very much a subsidiary issue to this thread, but interested parties may wish to consult Elizabeth A. Clark, “Contested Bodies: Early Christian Asceticism and Nineteenth-Century Polemics,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17:2 (2009): 281-307. Clark, who is not a Roman Catholic partisan by any stretch, devotes part of this article to Arthur Cleveland Coxe, the “American editor of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series,” who “advanced his cause by adding anti-Catholic footnotes and ‘elucidations’ to the Fathers’ writings” (abstract, p. 281). If you wish to be responsible in your studies of the Fathers, when it comes to ANF introductions, footnotes, and elucidations, caveat lector!
in Christ,
TC
Ray Stamper’s #415 helped me tremendously. A book that was instrumental in my becoming a Catholic was Newman’s “Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.” This sounds to me so much like the argument of that book. Ray, am I hearing you correctly?
jj
We may have been thinking along the same lines, but your response to Jason was way better than my response. After reading Schaff’s Introductory Notes at CCEL, it seemed obvious to me that Philip Schaff was distorting history to suit his agenda. I didn’t know much more about Philip Schaff than what I read about him on Wikipedia. Your post was very enlightening to me. Thanks for taking the time to write such a detailed reply!
Thanks for the heads up about Coxe’s anti-Catholic additions. As you say, this is a “subsidiary issue to this thread”, but your caveat and Ray Stamper’s remarks are germane to this CTC article: The Church Fathers-A New Resource, an Old Source. That CTC article hyperlinks to http://www.churchfathers.org, and from the homepage of churchfathers.org I found this:
The churchfathers.org hyperlink directs to the CCEL library – so caveat lector to all that read the introductory notes and footnotes at CCEL!
EWTN maintains a library of Christian Sources that is an alternative to the CCEL online Library.
If one is interested in studying the Early Church Fathers, I highly recommend the three volume set, The Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens. The three Indexes that come with Jurgens are priceless.
Jurgens comes with a very good General Index that contains what one would expect in a reference work. The other two invaluable Indexes are the Index of Scriptural References and Citations, and the Doctrinal Index.
All the quotes by the Church Father’s in Jurgen’s books are all numbered by the convention that follows the numbering of the Rouët de Journel’s Enchiridion patristicum. This numbering scheme allows Jurgens to compile his Index of Scriptural References and Citations, and his Doctrinal Index.
Index of Scriptural References and Citations – If one has a particular verse of scriptures in mind, one can quickly see if there is a citation in Jurgens for that particular verse of scriptures. For example, I see that Ezechiel 47:1-12 has a citation number 34, which is a quote from the Letter of Barnabas.
Doctrinal Index – IMO, this index alone is worth the price of the three books. In the Doctrinal Index I find a listing for number 100: Sacred Tradition is a true source of revelation. This doctrine has citation numbers 192 198 242 291 295 371 (818b). The citation numbers allow one to quickly look up which Church Father spoke to this doctrine. Catholic Answers uses Jurgen’s Doctrinal Index as the primary source for their The Father’s Know Best tracts.
Incidentally, the “Introductory Note” to Against Heresies that Jason quotes in 416 is by Coxe, not Schaff. See the Preface to ANF vol. 1 on p. v.
in Christ,
TC
When I, by the Grace of God, discovered the Early Fathers as a Protestant, I frequented the CCEL library online (before they started charging). It didn’t take me long to realize that many of the footnotes and introductions were not accurate descriptions of what was written in the texts at all… and I was a Protestant that was not so trilled about the idea of becoming Catholic at the time. Eventually, I would only use that site for the “actual” writings of the Fathers and ignore the obvious anti-Catholic deliberate distortions in the intros. The Father’s writings are very thorough, in my opinion, as they try to explain in as much detail as possible the reasons for the Faith. Their Scriptural exegesis is rather detailed too. Therefore, it seems redundant to offer an “interpretation” of an already robust and thorough interpretation. But, I suppose, some will do anything to justify their positions, even if it means creating glaring contradictions.
To me, it was a relief when newadvent.org started posting the works of the Fathers. They largely purged many of the deliberately misleading introductions, but a few of them remain. Honestly, though, there may be a place for those introductions in the way of evangelism. For me, a person who was just trying to objectively seek for the Truth and let that be my guide, those intros had the effect of making me even more disaffected by Protestantism as a whole. I had had enough of that nonsense of twisting reason to fit the square block into the round hole. I was annoyed by it, and it annoyed me even more to see them do it to an Early Church they had no claim to.
You are right, thanks for the correction.
Can anyone recommend a comprehensive set of translations of the ECFs other than Jurgens or the ANF?
Hey Ryan,
There isn’t really a comprehensive set of translations. ANF-NPNF is fine as long as the reader recognizes the shortcomings of the introductions and commentaries. As another commenter mentioned, many of the writings are available through Newadvent.org. Other useful but incomplete series are Early Christian Writings and Popular Patristics.
There are also the “Fathers of the Church” volumes published by Catholic University of America and the more recent “Ancient Christian Writers” series published by Paulist Press.
Ryan,
To what David said, I’d like to add the Fathers of the Church series (CUA Press) and, if you read French and have access to a good library, the bilingual (French and original language) Sources Chrétiennes series, which is quite extensive. There’s also IVP’s new Ancient Christian Texts series. For St Augustine in particular, New City Press has a new series of translations that should eventually include all of his writings. Finally, I could be wrong, but I suspect David meant Ancient Christian Writings (Paulist Press), which is also a helpful series.
Happy (and fruitful) reading,
TC
Sancte Francisce, ferens Christi stigmata, ora pro nobis!
Oops, sorry for the overlap, JJ.
[…] https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/06/how-john-calvin-made-me-a-catholic/ […]
I see Dr. Ander’s leap to the Catholic Church as puzzling. On one hand he discredits Calvin for having people thrown into prison. Where did Calvin learn this? He learned about it from Rome. This was the world Calvin was brought up in. In my view both were wrong for doing so because this kind of an act is unbiblical. Nowhere in the New Testament did the apostles teach that the church should throw someone into prison for not believing church doctrine. They could be dismissed from the church, or if their views were against the Gospel could be taught again. The problem with Rome and Calvin was the same as it is in any church period. They did not adhere to sola scriptura.
Dr. Anders says that the Catholic Faith is the Faith once for all delivered to the Saints. One of the items he failed to talk about is church tradition. Whenever a Pope speaks from his throne, his words BECOME Scripture and then traditions come from them. Church tradition in the Catholic Church is on par with Scripture and Papal infallibility as far as being authorative. Is this the right way to find and to maintain truth? I think not. What about the veneration of Mary? What about praying to Saints? What about the Catholic teaching that justification is not by faith alone, but also by works? Are any of these in the Bible? Catholics will point to the popes and church tradition to say, “they are all good and permissible”. We can go on and on about the other issues in the Catholic Church such as Purgatory and the denial of marriage of the clergy, but this would take too much time.
The “Faith once for all delivered to the Saints” that Jude talks about is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Paul speaks of this great news in NAS Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. Would Paul be at odds with Rome? You better believe he would.
Thomas Aquinas was mentioned by Dr. Ander. Aquinas in his Summa Theologica actually makes the point that Scripture is the only reliable authority in the church because it doesn’t change. The Catholic faith that Dr. Ander has embraced has changed over the centuries. Popes disagree with each other. Even today in the Catholic church there are priests in the church who disagree about many issues. I know of a man in Indiana who was led to Christ by a Catholic Priest. The Priest told him that salvation could be his if he believed in what Jesus Christ did for him on the Cross. He taught this man in a catholic school that salvation was by grace through faith ALONE in Christ. This doesn’t sound like a unified church, but people in one church who have many viewpoints.
Calvin didn’t do right in every area of his life. Neither did Luther or Wesley. Peter denied Jesus three times, and was later chastised by Paul in Galatians 2.And the truth is I don’t always do right either. If we judge truth by the acts of believers then we might as well all give up now. Faith is not in a system or in the righteous acts of people who say they believe. Faith is in Christ, who He is, what He has done. Faith is found over the centuries when we read all these things in God’s Word. This is why Scripture alone is the authorative voice God’s sheep must listen to. If we don’t then we WILL drift away. It’s not a matter of if, but when.
Scripture is our authority. As a pastor when I preach my people can judge what I say by the Word. When a priest speaks on Saturday or Sunday he can be judged by the Word. When a pope says something, even from his throne, even the smallest of catholics can scrutinize what he says by God’s revealed Word, the Bible.
The problem was not so much sending people to prison. It was the consistency of his position. If he really believed everyone has the right to interpret scripture and rebel against the church when the church gets it wrong then why does he not give these people that right. You say views against the gospel should not be taught. But who determines which views are against the gospel? Calvin thought the Catholic church had no right to do that but he seemed to claim that right for himself.
His words do not become scripture. They become a part of sacred tradition. All documents are part of tradition but some have more authority than others. But the pope is not to define new traditions. HE is to deepen the church’s understanding of that Faith once delivered.
Sacred scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium do work together. The phrase “on par” suggest a competition or conflict between them. We don’t believe there is. But we do believe the scriptures are inspired by God. We don’t say that about tradition or papal infallibility. We say they are inerrant but not inspired. So, again, on par is a bad phrase.
So what about these things? Do you have the true and complete doctrine on these matters? Why should we believe you? Are any of these things condemned in scripture? Yes, it takes time to go over these things. But there is no short cut. The reality is you opinion is based on scripture, reason, and tradition just like the Catholic position is. But how can you claim your doctrine as THE biblical doctrine and the Catholic one as not biblical? You can’t.
The Catholic church has changed but not on essential matters. So what about Protestantism. Are you saying it has not changed? Then you didn’t read this paper.
Yes, that is Catholic doctrine. When “faith alone” is properly understood.
But if what people regard as God’s truth keeps changing over time that is a concern. Was Calvin wrong then or are Calvinists wrong now? Or both? How do you know?
Where did you get this idea? It came from Calvin and Luther. People you say are wrong about many things. How do you know they are not wrong about this? How do you know you have any authority to preach on Sunday morning? Maybe you are getting God’s word wrong in some important way and God would rather you not teach your ideas in His name. I am not saying that is true. I am just asking how you know it isn’t. False teachers don’t generally think they are teaching falsehood.
Randy, I don’t know how to do the boxes. So I will put Randy says when I write what you said. Thx.
Randy says
But who determines which views are against the gospel? Calvin thought the Catholic church had no right to do that but he seemed to claim that right for himself.
Scripture itself since it is God’s unchanging Word determines whether any of us are in the right or in the wrong.
Randy says
His words do not become scripture. They become a part of sacred tradition.
My questions would be what role does tradition play in the Catholic Church? Does tradition have authority? If it does then doesn’t the Pope’s words become part of unchangeable authority? Is it possible for a Pope to say something on his throne and be wrong?
Randy says
Sacred scripture, sacred tradition, and the magisterium do work together. The phrase “on par” suggest a competition or conflict between them. We don’t believe there is. But we do believe the scriptures are inspired by God. We don’t say that about tradition or papal infallibility. We say they are inerrant but not inspired. So, again, on par is a bad phrase.
You say they work together, but which one has the FINAL authority? Like I asked above, if the Pope says something on his throne that is wrong, do you then admonish him by the Word of God or by already established tradition? Since you believe the Bible to be the only inspired (God breathed in 2 Tim 3:16) document, then you believe it to be inerrant (without error). You say tradition and papal infallibility are inerrant, but how does that work when some Popes disagree with other ones? Also, since papal infallibility is inerrant, doesn’t that mean his words are elevated to the same standard as Scripture? If he never makes a mistake when he is on the throne, and his words have authority, then it seems like this would be the case. So from a practical standpoint on par is not too far off.
Randy says
So what about these things? Do you have the true and complete doctrine on these matters? Why should we believe you? Are any of these things condemned in scripture? Yes, it takes time to go over these things. But there is no short cut. The reality is you opinion is based on scripture, reason, and tradition just like the Catholic position is. But how can you claim your doctrine as THE biblical doctrine and the Catholic one as not biblical? You can’t.
Can you give me one passage in the Bible where Paul or any of the other Apostles prayed to anyone other than God? As I ask that question, do I ask it because of tradition? No, I am asking a biblical question. Reason comes into it in that God has given us His Word the Bible. If He gave it to us, then He gives us a Word that is understandable. 2 Timothy 2:15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. I don’t ask you to believe me. I ask you to study God’s Word and to see if beliefs and practices line up with it. I also don’t claim to give you my view on the fundamentals of the faith. I claim what the Bible says. Anyone can know what the Word says if they will study and correctly handle the Word of truth. Martin Luther stood up at the diet of worms and proclaimed justification by faith alone. He didn’t make it up. He got it from the Bible. Paul would agree with Martin Luther over established Catholic Doctrine about justification. Here are a few verses from Paul. Romans 3:24 and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law. Romans 4:5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. alatians 2:16 know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Randy says
The Catholic church has changed but not on essential matters. So what about Protestantism. Are you saying it has not changed? Then you didn’t read this paper.
Here is one area where the church has changed a lot. Ignatius Loyola during the Catholic Counter Reformation proclaimed that anyone who believed in justification by faith alone is to be condemned. By condemnation he meant lost for eternity. Back then the protestants and the catholics knew their differences. Protestants believed in justification alone, whereas catholics believed in justification by faith plus works. In Vatican II protestants have been upgraded to wayward brothers. Wouldn’t you consider this to be a major change? Before we were all going to Hell. Now we are wayward brothers. It sure sounds like a huge change to me. I would say the veneration of Mary has been a huge change. The church didn’t always practice this. It came into the church when Constantine (brother of Ovaltine…ok bad joke) declared the whole empire Christian. Pagans came into the church with their practices. One of these was the worship of the, “Queen of Heaven.” The veneration of Mary came from this. So, this is a huge change in the church. I know some Catholics debate today if Mary plays a role in Salvation. All of this comes from non biblical beliefs and practices. I preach about Mary. She is to be honored as my sister in the Lord. She had tremendous faith for her age. But she said herself that she was in need of salvation, and her Son she bore gave it to her. Luke 1:46 And Mary said: “My soul glorifies the Lord 47 and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, Mary, my sister in the Lord was saved by the same God I’ve been. Praise the Lord!
Randy says
But if what people regard as God’s truth keeps changing over time that is a concern. Was Calvin wrong then or are Calvinists wrong now? Or both? How do you know?
Randy, this is exactly why Sola Scriptura is so important. People’s view about truth can change for a variety of reasons. It could be their limited knowledge, or it could be sin in their lives that blinds them. When we have a written objective standard, then we can at least know it’s there and can be learned and lived. I don’t point people to what I am saying. I strive to study the Word and show them what God says. How do I know I am right? I don’t. But I believe the Bible is right.
Randy says
Where did you get this idea? It came from Calvin and Luther. People you say are wrong about many things. How do you know they are not wrong about this? How do you know you have any authority to preach on Sunday morning? Maybe you are getting God’s word wrong in some important way and God would rather you not teach your ideas in His name. I am not saying that is true. I am just asking how you know it isn’t. False teachers don’t generally think they are teaching falsehood.
Luther came first. But I would point out that Thomas Aquinas came up with it first in his summa theologica. For us to have authority over the ages, then we have to have an unchanging authority. Sola Scriptura does that for believers throughout the ages. How do I even know about Christ 2,000 yrs after he was on the Earth? It is by the Word, that hasn’t changed. You asked how do I know whether I have authority. Paul told Timothy he had pastoral authority. He told him 2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage– with great patience and careful instruction. Timothy was taught by Paul, and if he stayed with Paul’s teaching then he had authority to preach. I do the same thing. I preach the same Gospel Paul preached. Of course I must admit he probably did it better than I do. Randy, if I am getting God’s Word wrong it will become evident by the people of God and other godly pastors. As far as false teachers are concerned, some believe they are teaching God’s Word. At the same time there is a difference when a teacher rejects what God’s Word has revealed. An example of this would be the doctrine of the trinity, which is that there is one God, who consists of three separate and distinct persons. What if a Catholic priest or theologian said, “I don’t believe that”. I believe there is only one person who is God. How would you deal with this person? You would show them the passages in God’s Word where the Father is called God, the Son is called God, and the Spirit is called God. And you show them that the Word fully declares there is only one God who created the Heavens and the Earth. If the teacher still rejects after you show them sufficient Scriptures then it’s not the Bible’s fault or Sola Scriptura’s fault that this person is teaching wrong doctrine. The problem is they have departed from God’s revealed truth found in His Word.
Randy, thanks for the time. As a testimony I say this. I am a blood bought, justified,presently being sanctified, someday glorifed child of God who has the hope of Heaven. Paul says my feelings about the salvation I possess. Romans 4:6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. 8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”
Early on someone posted something claiming Rick Warren is a Calvinist. I submit PROOF that Rick Warren is no Calvinist, but a PELAGIAN!
https://www.fightingforthefaith.com/2010/10/rick-warrens-lecture-at-desiring-god-conference.html
Jason,
Could you point us to written material for your “proof” rather than a tedious, lengthy podcast? It is not clear to me that teaching the necessity of repentance equates to Pelagianism, and that’s about as far into the podcast that I could stand get, so I’m not even sure if that’s what the speaker actually meant. It seemed to me that Warren was being proof-texted. I don’t care much for Warren’s teaching or philosophy, but he should be at least treated fairly. A written critique would be far easier to evaluate.
Nathan
Nathan, just listen to the podcast the whole way through. It will be worth it. Warren is obviously NOT a Calvinist, and obviously IS a Pelagian. And Rick Warren is not teaching Biblical repentance. And no, I have heard Warren speak enough that I don’t need to waste my time with his books to know if he is a Pelagian heretic or not.
Jason,
I simply haven’t the time or inclination to put up with something so poorly put together. Why should I consider the claims that Warren is Pelagian any less specious than the claims that Roman Catholicism is Pelagian? It’s a claim that demands written exposition, not insinuations on a podcast. Quote Warren denying the necessity of grace and I’ll be more sympathetic.
I know that this thread is old, but I just this day happened to stumble across it. Does it not seem that the things Dr. Anders finds repulsive in Calvin are found in greater measure in Rome? Calvin is so intolerant and narrow-minded! And Rome of the 16th century was not? I wish we were able today to consult the 16th century French Protestants about the kind, diversity-loving, Roman church? They might have another opinion.
It seems to me that Dr. Anders has turned-up his nose at a teaspoon of Calvin’s rottenness but is willing to swallow a bucket of refuse from Rome.
Bill T.,
I read your comment and I understand you disagree with Dr. Anders position, however I did not see any substantive examples or evidence. If you could explain your opinion with specific examples I would appreciate it.
Pax
Matthew
Hey Bill, #445
I gather from what you’ve said that if I want to write a piece that is critical of Calvin, then I must necessarily include in that piece on Calvin an additional critical examination of “Rome”—OR ELSE whatever I’ve written is just an argument that “Rome” is impeccable.
You see the problem with that, right? Nowhere in this piece by Dr Anders is the argument made that “Rome” is impeccable. Nowhere is it even implied. Nor is it relevant to the substance of this post. You’ve simply pulled it from thin air.
Suppose I were to say, ‘You’re right, Bill: Calvin and what you’re calling “Rome” were both capable of being mean, so let’s not criticize Calvin.’ We still have the more important issues addressed here by Dr Anders, namely, that Calvin rejected
Could that opposition mean, as Dr Anders says, that Evangelicalism is not a direct descendant of Calvin but represents, instead, the failure of Calvinism?
So, setting aside all criticisms of the man Calvin, what are your thoughts about the much more important issues in this post?
Best,
wilkins
Has Dr. Anders writtn on the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wonder if why he didn’t go EO.
Seems to me that the comments here are overlooking other noteables of the faith who likewise rightly critique Calvin. May I suggest the following resources (the first being my preference):
I. George Bryson – “The Darkside of Calvinism – the Calvinist Caste System” which one can obtain direct from the author’s site at: https://www.calvarychapeltheology.com/resources.html
George is part of the Calvary Chapel “movement” of Chuck Smith and is a pastor/teacher of over 40 years and who leads an outreach church movement in Russia. George does not hold to Arminian beliefs.
II. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell – “Why I am Not A Calvinist”
Calvinsit systematic theology, whether of the Hyper or Hypo strain, flies in the face of John 3:16…and as these persons make clear…so disfigures the truth of Scripture that one hardly knows where to turn.
While I am a layperson believer, and currently of a non-denominational bent, EWTN and the Journey Home continue to adjust my vision of the Catholic Church and in a manner that is far more open than closed. At this juncture in my walk the Holy Spirit and our Lord has not yet revealed to me where I rightly belong…but I continue to pray and seek His wisdom along the lines that the great brother in Christ, RA Torrey (sometimes called the Elisha to Dwight L. Moody’s Elijah) suggests will get me there; namely, through relying on the revealed promisses of God in His Word and through the intercession of the Holy Spirit — and ALL of this through “constant, persistent, sleepless, overcoming prayer.”
Above all we must know against who we battle – and it is not the various expressions of our faith. It is as Paul instructs in Eph 6:
Ephesians 6:12-20 (New American Standard Bible)
12For our (A)struggle is not against (B)flesh and blood, but (C)against the rulers, against the powers, against the (D)world forces of this (E)darkness, against the (F)spiritual forces of wickedness in (G)the heavenly places.
13Therefore, take up (H)the full armor of God, so that you will be able to (I)resist in (J)the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
14Stand firm therefore, (K)HAVING GIRDED YOUR LOINS WITH TRUTH, and HAVING (L)PUT ON THE BREASTPLATE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS,
15and having (M)shod YOUR FEET WITH THE PREPARATION OF THE GOSPEL OF PEACE;
16in addition to all, taking up the (N)shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the (O)flaming arrows of (P)the evil one.
17And take (Q)THE HELMET OF SALVATION, and the (R)sword of the Spirit, which is (S)the word of God.
18With all (T)prayer and petition (U)pray at all times (V)in the Spirit, and with this in view, (W)be on the alert with all (X)perseverance and (Y)petition for all the saints,
19and (Z)pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me (AA)in the opening of my mouth, to make known with (AB)boldness (AC)the mystery of the gospel,
20for which I am an (AD)ambassador (AE)in chains; that [a]in proclaiming it I may speak (AF)boldly, (AG)as I ought to speak.
Although I am not a seminary trained Christian and have not delved into Reformation history as Dr. Anders has, I converted from Reform-Tradition Protestantism to the Catholic Chruch for much the same reason as Dr. Anders. In a re-reading of “the Confessions” of St. Augustine I found the threads that connected Christ’s teachings with the Catholic Church’s. And since Augustine was so acclaimed by Reform Tradition Protestants I began to wonder about the Reformation. How could the church have been so right up to Augustine and then be ‘righted’ back to Augustine by the Reformation when the Reformation led to a belief system in the sacraments that was so different from what Augustine taught. Something seemed illogical and inconsistent. I asked myself, maybe what I had been taught about the Reformation as a Protestant was not correct. Did the Catholic Church really lose its spiritual way for 1100 years, rough time span from Augustine to Luther? What happened during those years? Could Christ have let his Church be polluted by ‘false teachings’ of Roman Catholicism, as I was taught as a Protestant, for 1100 years? Whoa that’s a long time! Gee, I thought that Christ himself had said that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail agains it”– i.e. His Church. If Christ was to believed on all things he said, then he must be believed in this statement as well. Ergo, then maybe the Church that St. Peter was commissioned by Christ to lead was “Catholic” and continuous and not “Reformed” and splintered-off. These were just some of the questions that popped into my mind that started to chip away at my foundation in Reform-Tradition Protestantism. To finish the story, I made the decision to become Catholic with good doses of ‘leaps of faith’ that were necessary to bridge the eventual, and I submit necessary, gaps in understanding that precede every person’s conversion. You simply can’t possibly understand everything nor explain everything with precise proofs and irrefutable logic. But you can certainly question what you have heard and been taught and come to believe as fact, when you uncover things that challenge the premises of those beliefs. And that is my story.
Thank You Dr. Anders for telling your story.
Tis why we do not follow a man but Christ alone. Blessings to you.
Christi,
How do you know you are not following man but Christ alone? Looking at the site you linked it seems you are counting on quite a number of men to help you follow Christ alone. There are references to Calvin, Paul Washer, John MacArthur, John Piper, and many references to “reformed” sources. You seem to feel that is what following Christ alone looks like. I used to think that too and I was blessed by all those men. But how do we know that way of following Christ has not made some serious errors?
The data in this article suggests that that method of following Christ alone has embraced very different thinking at different points in history. Do you agree with that conclusion? Would you expect followers of Christ alone from a few centuries ago to be that different from what they are today? The bible says Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever.
[…] at Called to Communion, David Anders writes about How John Calvin Made me a Catholic: … Calvin shocked me by rejecting key elements of my Evangelical tradition. Born-again […]
I think it’s a travesty that you went so long within the walls of the reformed camp without having a thorough understanding of Calvin and his theology. I learned these things as a convert to reformed theology within the 1st few months. Neither Calvin nor Luther imagined themselves leaving the Catholic Church, much less starting something new. They were thrown out when they refused to comply with the vast and grevious abuses of the Catholic Church.
Which leads me to this – I could address all the issues you have with reformed theology but it always comes down to the same question i.e. how can an unrighteous sinful human being ever be made right with an eternally holy God, who will not pardon the guilty? The historic orthodox answer, from Calvin, Luther, St.Bernard, Chrysotom, Augustine, St.Paul, Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc has always been the same. “Blessed is the man to whom the LORD does not impute iniquity”. The question is one of imputation. Is salvation based upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to the sinner (so that God is just and the Justifier of the one who has faith in Christ), or does Christ and the sacraments enable me, by infusing righteousness into me.
Excuse me for saying, but your personal pilgrimage means nothing in light of this question. What does the bible say? And yes, we can refer to the fathers of the church – I listed just a few above who held to the historic reformed position. I would gladly throw in my lot with Rome if she would get this one thing right – because it is the whole root of the matter. Until she does she remains apostate. But you don’t have to. I can assure you there are many reformed churches out there that understand the continuity of the Roman church, and understand their place in that continuity. One need not leave Geneva for Rome. But you do need to leave Rome for Heaven. Not because it is the much-dreaded Roman Catholic Church, but because their doctrine of salvation is not God’s doctrine of salvation. It truly is “By grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone – to God’s glory alone”. Anything less simply will not do.
With all sincerity – Brett D.
Dear Brett,
I appreciate your fervor. In answer to your concerns, I’m pretty sure that the Roman Catholic Church has never maintained or taught that forgiveness of sins happens by any means but by God’s grace, which is both necessary and sufficient to remit the guilt of sin.
The question remains, how does one come by this grace, if soteriological Universalism is not true? By believing that one has received it? This leads to clear and insurmountable circularity, a major reason why I am now so glad to be Catholic: I have as much assurance as I could be that I am in the Church that Jesus founded. In this, the “Reformed” folks have a real problem – where is the Church? Is it invisible and its membership determined by the one orthodox belief that you cited? If so, this comes down to the private convictions of a mereological sum of individuals, and this is not a Church. Full stop. Is it the PCA? Pretty pathetic fulfillment of Jesus’ promise that he would sustain his Church and the gates of hell would not prevail against it, if you ask me – are you willing to place your hope in Christ on the fortunes of one segment of the “Split Ps” (“P” for Presbyterian)? This is the dilemma facing any non-Catholic who wants to take Biblical talk of “The Church” seriously. Either we have to call something “The Church” that doesn’t even resemble *a* Church, or it’s one denomination, that may not even pretend to be that Church.
The way that one overcomes this dilemma is to renounce individualism and not choose “a church” based on its conformity with *your* preselected beliefs, but be taught by a Church with an unbroken line of apostolic succession back to the apostles themselves – if this is not The Church, because those with charge of it abdicated them by their heresy (as defined by *whom*??) then there is no Church, and Jesus and the Holy Spirit failed, and God is not sovereign. If there is a Church, it must have been there all along. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire, but the real Church is one that reforms *itself* (e.g., Council of Trent, Vatican II), not that is led by isolated cults of personality that decided they could throw out centuries of Holy Tradition and start over on their own terms and think that *that* is the Church of Christ.
The Roman Church may teach salvation by “grace” but it defines it radically different from the Apostles and the Church Fathers. The Reformation (Lutheran wing especially) did not throw out tradition, they threw out those teaches which contradicted the clear teachings of scripture. At Trent the Papists affirmed that which was against scripture and threw out the clear teachings of scripture and actually created the Roman Catholic Church at that point formally. It was Rome that left the Church not the Lutherans. The Church is where God’s word is preached rightly divided and the sacrements rightly administered. The Roman Catholic Church does not make the grade scripturally because it’s denial of the Gospel via a false doctrine of Justification.
Let me qualify that, that does not mean that the Roman Catholic Church does not contain Christians within it. I would further add the the RCC has reached the state that it did through inovation. The Lutheran Reformation threw out the innovations and quoted the Church Fathers heavily to prove it. I don’t know how many times I have been told by Roman Catholics that their church does not teach for instance that the Mass is a bloodless resacrificing of Christ which is clearly against their own catechism and history. https://gnesiolutheran.com/the-mass-and-the-sacrifice-of-christ/ This previous link demonstrates the point. I applaud catholics who do not believe those teachings of their church that are against the clear teaching of scripture but ignoring the discrepency does not make it go away.
Kudos Brett!
In the debate on justification, there’s one point that I am fairly confident about: the central Church Fathers did not teach the Reformation construal of the forensic imputation of righteousness. Both Luther and Calvin acknowledged this. As Luther commented: “‘Augustine has sometimes erred and is not to be trusted. Although good and holy, he was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as other fathers … But when the door was opened for me in Paul, so that I understood what justification by faith is, it was all over with Augustine.”
All one needs to do is to read Augustine’s “On the Spirit and the Letter” and “On Faith and Works,” and one will immediately see the manifest differences between Augustine and the Reformers; moreover, you will also see that the Tridentine Fathers were clearly working within an Augustinian framework.
See Phillip Cary’s reflections on Augustine and justification: https://pontifications.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/augustine-on-justification/. Cary, it should be mentioned, is a strong supporter of Luther’s understanding of justification by faith.
Thanks, Fr. Alvin, for some helpful historical perspective.
Jason: Well, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I don’t grant the truth of your assertions. In the meantime, I reiterate my questions about the Church and wonder if you could provide a definition of “church” that would at least let what you refer to as “The Church” qualify as *a* church; that is, without question-beggingly asserting your definition of orthodoxy and its implicit assumptions about who *really* believes it. Because it sounds to me like a “collection of not necessarily associated individuals that believe such-and-such” and I don’t see why anyone would call this *a* church, except that the term appears frequently in the NT and so it must apply to something regardless of what the actual meaning of the word is. But if a church must, in order to be one, include real and visible *communion* among its members (as in “in communion,” viz.: the title of this website), then the dilemma I noted arises: either there’s no Church, or the Church is one splinter of a denomination. Or the Catholic Church has been there along, it is one, it is catholic, and apostolic. By “apostolic” one shouldn’t mean “pretending that it’s still the fifth century and decrying anything else as ‘innovation,'” but rather recognizing the apostolic succession that allows the Church to endure over time and develop, as does an oak tree from an acorn, and most importantly thereby to be be present to every generation.
Chesterton said “If the Church is anything, it is a Thing.” But in the hands of Protestants, unfortunately if it is a “Thing” at all it has to be an abstract idealized construct not requiring actual unity among its members. I reiterate the challenge to state why such a thing should be called *a* church, without begging the question that the church must be a scattered collection of individuals because that’s the only thing left that *could* be. The motivation for that conclusion seems to be from a reductio ad absurdum that simply asserts that the Catholic Church could *not* be correct. But one man’s reductio is another man’s modus ponens, so the materials are at least there for a possible logical conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church.
Jason,
The mass is the bloodless re-presentation of the one sacrifice. The priest operates in the Office of Christ, since there is only one high priest and one sacrifice and one divine worship (not the thousands of protestant derivations that actually lack the efficacious cause of worship, namely Christ’s sacrifice). Like the Passover (which was a memorial of The Passover), the Mass (not type or shadow but sacrament and gospel reality) is what is happening in heaven outside of time throughout all of eternity. We participate in it again and again through the Mass because we live in time and space. However, at the moment of consecration we enter into the mystery of the eternal Lamb who was “slain from the creation of the world” (Rev 13:8). As John saw in the Revelation of Christ, “A Lamb, looking as if it had been slain” (Rev 5), we too always perceive Christ as the one who was slain and gives himself to us in the New Covenant sacrament and memorial of the Holy Eucharist.
Further, since it is his body and blood that brings us salvation on Calvary (in time and space), how does a Protestant gain access to its resources without the Holy Eucharist? By believing in it? Doesn’t that act happen in time and space? Since I was a Protestant I know that I believed that my faith appropriated what happened 2,000 years ago. As a Catholic I believe that Calvary transcends time and space and that my faith need not be only that it happened 2,000 years ago but that it perpetually heals and saves mankind today. The efficaciousness of the One Act, transcends all time through the Eucharist and thereby makes reality in time/space “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the World”–both in A.D. 34 and A.D. 2010.
Many schismatics throughout the first 1,500 years of the Church threw out Catholic doctrine for their own (quoting Church Fathers, Scripture, and Prophetic Instruction). Luther’s revolt was no novelty it just spread error more universally because of the novel success of modernity and the way in which its themes corresponded to protestantism.
This is the classic error. Considering your opinion of what the bible says to be objective fact in the face of sincere disagreement. Mathison, a protestant, has written on this question here. If you give us the kind of charity that this Baptist expects a Lutheran to give him it might open up some dialogue. It might also open your eyes to how much your position depends on accepting your opinion of scripture over someone else’s.
You guys are expert straw man builders and red herring fishermen. I think the link I provided shows sufficiently that the “re-presentation” is a recent innovation just as transubstantiation is an innovation of the early medieval period.
“Further, since it is his body and blood that brings us salvation on Calvary (in time and space), how does a Protestant gain access to its resources without the Holy Eucharist? ”
Which kind of “protestant”? The only way to recieve any benefit from the Eucharist is faith, otherwise you receive condemnation. What if you heard the Gospel, repented and believed it but immediately died thereafter? Would one be damned because they had no opportunity for baptism or the receiving the True Body and True Blood by mouth? Of course not. Anymore than a baptised baby would be damned because they could not make a confession with their mouth. The Word of God is not without effect.
Micah, you show that you were an evangelical by your ignorance .
“Chesterton said “If the Church is anything, it is a Thing.” But in the hands of Protestants, unfortunately if it is a “Thing” at all it has to be an abstract idealized construct not requiring actual unity among its members. ”
This is not true of Confessional Lutherans, which I am. Another straw man.
Alvin Kimel, I would like to see a citation for your Luther quote. I have read some of the Church fathers myself and the ones I have ready taught Justification by faith alone and the farther back you go the clearer it is.
OK, Jason I read the link. Quite frankly I don’t see his point. Here is the key quote
What confuses me is the “We must conclude …” part. I cannot see any logic by which that conclusion follows from the premises given. In fact, the premises directly contradict the conclusion. The premises do not contradict Catholic teaching that Christ was offered once for all and that the Mass is not a re-sacrifice but a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice. So Catholic teaching is consistent. Matt Slick is not.
Jason,
no, not ignorant, you mistook my point, which was a *dilemma*. You reject one horn of my dilemma, but your “Thing” is the LCMS, perhaps? That’s what’s leftover from what Christ established? Then you’re impaled on the other horn. Reductio ad absurdum. I do think it’s just that simple.
Jason & Brett,
Augustine didn’t adhere to sola fide. The point is uncontroversial. Check any major monograph on his soteriology or McGrath’s history of the doctrine of justification.
https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/no-gospel-for-augustine/
Randy,
Revelation says that Jesus is the “lamb slain from before the foundation of the world” There is a mystical quality to the resurrection which occurs outside of time. I think what the Catholics mean is that the mass somehow steps out of our space-time continuum and into whatever mystical realm the “lamb slain from before the foundation of the world” occurs in. To participate in the mass is to participate in the crucifiction which is somehow, eternally existing. It is a mystery.
As I am not RCC that is my best guess at what their theology of the Eucharist entails.
Jason, the Luther quotation is ostensibly to be found in Luther’s Works 54:49. I have not confirmed it, but it is widely circulated around the net, for what that is worth. Compare also these words of Calvin: “Augustine’s view, or at any rate his manner of stating it, we must not entirely accept. For even though he admirably deprives man of all credit for righteousness and transfers it to God’s grace, he still subsumes grace under sanctification, by which we are reborn in newness of life through the Spirit. But Scripture, when it speaks of faith righteousness, leads us to something far different: namely, to turn aside from the contemplation of our own works and look solely upon God’s mercy and Christ’s perfection” (Inst. 3:11.15f).
Your claim that the Church Fathers promoted the Reformation sola fide is simply wrong. Yes, one can find occasional quotations that sound like “faith alone,” but the words do not mean the same thing within the patristic paradigm as they do within the Lutheran and Reformed paradigms. (I distinguish between the Lutheran and Reformed paradigms, as I believe that critical differences exist between the two.) For the Reformers, everything hinges on a clear distinction between justification (by faith) and sanctification (by synergistic cooperation). The point of this distinction is to emphatically assert the utter passivity of man in his justification and thus to ground personal assurance of salvation completely in God and the atoning sacrifice of Christ.
I do not believe, however, that you will find a clear distinction between justification and sanctification in the Church Fathers, nor will you find in them the idea that the righteousness of Christ is legally transferred or imputed to us through faith, nor will you find in them the assertion that we may personally “know” that we are and will be saved. If there are exceptions, I’d like to know who they are. Augustine is critical here. Students of Augustine (mainly) agree that he conflates justification, regeneration, and sanctification. For Augustine we are not ultimately saved by faith; we are saved by love. If Augustine cannot be enlisted to support the sola fide–and he simply can’t be–how likely is it that the other Church Fathers can be? For one thing, the Eastern Fathers did not hold as severe an understanding of original sin as did Augustine, which is why they are often accused of Semi-Pelagianism. What does “faith alone” mean in a synergistic framework? Can it mean what Luther and Calvin wanted it to mean?
As already recommended by Perry, I refer you to Alister McGrath’s book on the history of justification: *Iustitia Dei*. McGrath is an evangelical Anglican, not a Catholic apologist. McGrath goes so far as to characterize the Reformation position on forensic justification as a “genuine theological novum.” Also see Robert Eno’s essay “Some Patristic Views on the Relationship of Faith and Works in Justification,” in *Justification by Faith* (ed. Anderson, Murphy and Burgess). For Eastern perspectives, see the 16th century correspondence between Patriarch Jeremiah II and the Lutheran theologians of Tubingen and David Bradshaw’s essay “St. John Chrysostom on Grace and Free Will” (https://www.russianorthodox-stl.org/grace_freewill.html).
Jason #462
I think we are misunderstanding each other. As a Confessional Lutheran, I now understand that you have a concept of the Eucharist that is at least closer to a Catholic one than a Calvinist or a Methodist or an evangelical so I apologize for not assuming so but it’s hard to tell which tradition each protestant comes from because there are so many. Can you blame me?
I may have misspoke on those points, but I did not misspeak regarding the re-presentation of the One sacrifice of Christ. I made the O.T. reference for a reason since The Eucharist is the perfect, New Covenant reality of the Passover. Was there more than one Passover? No. What were the Israelites doing during the memorial of the Passover? (it was not a feast; the term memorial in Hebrew is pregnant with meaning) They were acting out the one Passover meal when God delivered them. They were not “coming out of egypt again” but rather entering back into that one time of God’s redemption-replaying the events of salvation. As an O.T. type and shadow, however, there was no eternal reality to what they were doing (they were actors and it only pointed to Christ). In Christ, our paschal victim, we participate in the One Sacrifice on Calvary through the bloodless sacrifice of the Mass (no acting like the Passover, but real sacramental action). It is a sacrifice in lieu of its incorporation with the one sacrifice (Christ the God-man victim instituted it), and it does happen to us in space and time, but it transcends space and time because God exists outside of space and time and that is where the victory was won–on the altar of heaven yet in plain view to us at Calvary.
Peace to You
For those of us who are laypersons, struggling to get a grasp of the more important and critical differences between the theological beliefs of the Catholic Church and other “churches” and/or Chrisitan denominations and/or non-denominational bodies…historical context and word meanings on some of these matters is helpful. I found the following today in searching out the “Tridentine Fathers”, and what all of that has come to mean or be manifest in what is called the “Joint Declaration” of 10/1999 between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation at:
https://evangelical-catholicism.blogspot.com/2006/08/post-tridentine-development-of_04.html
It would be most helpful if persons like Anders and Fr Alvin Kimel would put in layperson language the central dividing points and how they are purported to be appropriately (Biblically) addressed by all bodies of mainstream believers.
I, for one, continue to remain stuck in being unable to accept transubstantiation, the elevation of Mother Mary to near diety-hood (true, she was blessed in being chosen by God to bear the Christ) with a Hail-Mary Rosary mantra for her “necessary” intercession (along with other “saints” of the Catholic Church in similar esteem and position)…what to speak of the need of a Pope and Magesterium (while these may be helpful from a pure practical and managerial perspective…surely they do not replace Christ as the sole head of the Church Universal. And the list of oddities goes on and on with the CC as do the grounds for so much division in the faith.
Please cut to the quick on the differences, that truly and materially matter, and help the masses understand the Truth of His teachings without endless arguing of what or who is “The Church” as if that means something other than that body of believers who have a faith, based upon facts (not feelings), in the saving and sanctifying grace of Jesus Christ. Let’s let the “works” issue rest … for as He said, those who have truly repented and turned to Jesus will be saved and will engage in loving actions towards others, the kinds of acts that demonstate true and salvific belief. AMEN.
Jeremiah,
You explanation of the doctrine is fine. It was not I who was opposing but Jason and the guy he quoted in his linked article. I was just responding to Jason’s chest pounding about ho good that article was in proving the Catholic church wrong. The actual argument is always a disappointment.
Catholic doctrine actually sees more events as transcending time. Mary does not just bring Jesus to this world once but she does it in a way that transcends time and space. So she can be thought of as mediatrix of all graces in a timeless ways.
Paul: If you think “The Church” is just the sum of individuals who believe such and such “truly” enough, I don’t know why you would even trouble yourself about the Catholic Church. If all it takes to be in the “church” is to believe that you are saved by grace through faith alone, then it isn’t necessary to believe in, let alone do, all those Catholic things at all.
As if it would be silly to suggest otherwise. Does the Church matter? Not if your definition of the church is correct. But why call it a “body” if its members have nothing to do with each other except believing the same basic things? My bringing up “the Church” isn’t quibbling over semantics. It’s the whole point. I’ll say it again: if you think believing such and such is sufficient to be in “the Church,” you’ll never understand why anyone would be Catholic, let alone join the Catholic Church from without, and believe all those weird Catholic things. You want to drill down to brass tacks, and that’s great, and there are places you can get those questions addressed: (for example https://www.catholic.com/) What I was trying to address is a foundational issue that, from where I stand, gets right at the heart of the separation you decry, but is rarely if ever brought to light.
Paul, the issues you raise are complex and not easily addressed in a single comment. I recommend the following books:
1) On the Eucharist and transubstantiation: Stephen B. Clark, *Catholics and the Eucharist*
2) On the Blessed Virgin Mary: Scott Hahn, *Hail, Holy Queen*
3) On the Church and the Papacy: Joseph Ratzinger, *Called to Communion*
I also strongly recommend Richard John Neuhaus, *Catholic Matters*.
I’m sure others have better recommendations to offer.
“the Mass is not a re-sacrifice but a “re-presentation” of the sacrifice.”
Randy, this directly contradicts the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church. That is the point.
Hello Jason, (reply # 475)
It does no such thing. The Catechism of the Catholic Church does not in any way claim multiple sacrifices. The Miracle of the Mass makes present the one and same sacrifice at calvary.
CCC 1366 – The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.
“For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.”
St. Justin Martyr, First Apology (110-165 AD).
Micah & Fr. Kimel,
Just seems rather clear to me that the Temple was destroyed when most of Revelation was fulfilled around 70 AD and the “this generation” to who Christ addressed His Olivet Discourse, and His other words in Scripture, established a new covenant and “church” – which is the living body of faithful believers. The “Church” therefore, is not a building, establishment, heirarchy, a mini-kingdom on earth, new set of Laws, or anything of the sort.
Christ rules as King of King and Lord of Lords, Satan is bound, and what we all await is His Second Coming and the Resurrection and final Judgement to life everlasting with our Lord or to eternal separation for those who refused to accept the perfect, one and only and final sacrifice of our Lord.
Now, between now and then, our “faith”, which again is based on historical facts and reasonable assurances and not feelings, will be tested and proven salvific to the extent that fruit is “produced” (i.e. righteouss acts of love towards fellow mankind are “walked in” or manifest in the practical lives of the genuine believer), and this is the essentials of our Christian inheritance. Believers observe Communion in remberance of Him, not to or as a re-sacrifice or a so-called “re-presentation.”
It also seems to me that Fr. Kimel and Anders, after so many years of study, should be able to glean from those “authorities” they refer to, cogent and concise explanations of the conflicting viewpoints and WHAT and WHY the CC holds the views that they do. What are the issues that divide and Why is the CC position correct and why each of the others are not.
In the end…His message and teachings seem particularly clear in at least one area; namely, we are to love (in the agape sense) one another as He loved us and gave His life for us. It is hard to make a convincing case for the promoting Sacraments and the like. The major and minor Prophets, Mary, King David, Peter, John, Paul and the other “greats” of our church body of true believers remain dead and buried until His 2nd Coming when they, like we believers since, will be raised in our spritual bodies and reunited with Christ. Until then we, and they all, are “mere” mortals, awaiting His full Glory.
So, again I ask each of you with so much to say about the rightness of Luther vs. the CC, or Calvin for that matter who, as I stated months ago so tortued the Word (his TULIP) that one can hardly make sense of it at all, let’s stick with the foundational principles that unite us and let go of the legalistic Pharasaic-like machinations that divide.
Jason (re:#475),
On the “re-presentation” question, #1366 and 1367 (the full sections) in the Catechism may be helpful for you. I will provide the sections here, with a link for further on-line reading, in the Catechism, on the Eucharist:
1366 The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit:
[Christ], our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper “on the night when he was betrayed,” [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world, and its salutary power be applied to the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit.187
1367 The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner.”188
https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P41.HTM
Regarding the Eucharist, it appears our separated brethren have difficulty with Christ’s sacrifice being in One place/time and yet somehow being united to the Lord’s actions on the night of The Passover when he instituted the new passover of the Eucharist. Let us consider St. Augustine’s words:
“Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: “this is my body.” {Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377}”
Are we to assume that St. Augustine was holding a part of his hand in his hand or is this referring to the very same bread that had just been consecrated by the voice that called heaven and earth into existence? Is it so hard to believe that voice could make the bread become his body? Do we turn away and grumble at the hard saying that we must consume him, chomp (literally) on his flesh?
Like the lamb that was sacrificed and then consumed at the passover (Ex 12:15; Num 9:12- “do not break one of it’s bones”), Christ is the Lamb that was slain and is now consumed. As He said, the flesh (old law) profits little, but the Spirit (new law) quickens (this is consistent with St. Paul’s understanding in Galatians). So, consuming the Body of Christ, the bread of life, manna from heaven, The Word of God, is essential to the New Covenant fulfillment of the O.T. type/shadow.
As we have already said, the O.T. Passover meal was a memorial (Hebrew: Zikrown). This word is uniquely tied in scripture to worship, a sign of covenant between God and Man. Simply bringing to memory the sacrifice of Christ would be incompatible with the Spirit quickening (I can remember something without the Spirit aiding me) with Zikrown as a new covenant reality. The inadequacy of the O.T. act of Zikrown is acceptable because it was only meant to be a type/shadow. Nevertheless, I do need the Spirit to bring a past event into the present-REALLY.
What does the Eucharist commemorate? His saving act on the Cross (the blood of the New Covenant for the remission of sins). So, Christ simply being present is not enough. He is present to us in a unique way, namely in his status as paschal victim for our sins. If the meal is truly Zikrown, quickened by the Spirit, it is in fact the partaking of the Sacrificial Lamb. If it is partaking of the Sacrificial Lamb then it can be nothing less than a sacrifice in virtue of its participation with the Paschal victim (not merely a participation of Christ en general) through which we offer our bodies, in participation with the Holy Eucharist, as a living sacrifice, an acceptable act of worship (Rom 12:1).
We are left with this:
(1) Christ is the Paschal Victim in the sacrificial act on Calvary
(2) The Eucharist is a partaking of the Paschal Lamb
(3) Therefore, it is a participation in the sacrificial act
(4) Thus, it can be understood properly as a sacrifice in perpetuity of the One Act
What would need to be demonstrated is that an act that is subsequent to another act in time space cannot be a part of the same act (it couldn’t be an argument from science since quantum physics affirms the notion). Since God is outside of time (yet can act in time), and the priest acts in the office of Christ (who is God), one cannot argue that this per impossible. (Some theologians argue that the transfiguration was also the event on Mt. Sanai which would give other scriptural evidence of Christ acting in two different time/space locations yet at one moment for Him). Even if this defied the laws of physics, the miracle of the loaves and fishes and the indications that his glorified body transcends the laws of physics would evidence the possibility that the Mass can be a sacrifice at time (1a, 1b, 1c…) and yet only be the real New Covenant Zikrown (bringing to present) the One Sacrifice of Christ on calvary.
“It also seems to me that Fr. Kimel and Anders, after so many years of study, should be able to glean from those “authorities” they refer to, cogent and concise explanations of the conflicting viewpoints and WHAT and WHY the CC holds the views that they do. What are the issues that divide and Why is the CC position correct and why each of the others are not.”
Paul, I’m afraid I must decline your kind invitation.
Folks,
I think this whole issue around the Eucharist could be settled better if we all just focus on the phrase Jesus stated when HE said “This is my body”
Catholics, PLEASE, don’t offer catechism class here. Most protestants don’t care.
Protestants, PLEASE, forget all the other stuff swirling in your head around the “idolatry” of the mass.
Lets ALL just think about that one phrase which we ALL agree on,
“THIS IS MY BODY”
What does it mean? What does it really really mean? What did Jesus mean by it?
Why would He say something so patently strange and weird?
Is there miraculous content to the phrase?
Is there still miraculous content to the phrase?
If your pastor/elder/priest/rector/whatever still says that phrase whenever you celebrate the holy meal does it STILL, today, have miraculous content?
Lets just spend a decade meditating on these questions. I think that would help our conversation out a lot.
BTW I’m NOT catholic. I don’t have an agenda to convert you protestants. I just want us all to at least have a little bit of unity around this meal of thanksgiving.
Paul (#477)
I see what you did there. Do you?
This just asserts as fact your opinion as to the question under consideration (“where is the Church?”). Here, I’ll do mine: The “Church” is the Catholic Church. With the Pope and the Saints. Convinced? No? Then why would we be by yours? We all read the same New Testament, but your opinions about it do not seem “rather clear” to me or many others here.
You did it again here. I do not agree with your statement, and I don’t find it in Scripture.
Again. Now, I agree with you that this is a teaching of Jesus, and that it is in fact a powerful commandment. However, nothing you say below it about the Sacraments and the Saints in any way relates to it.
Which foundational principles, as determined by whom? All this says is “everybody should stick to theology that I agree with (‘principles that unite us’) and abandon theology I don’t (which I have determined to be Pharisaical and legalistic ‘machinations’).” Why? All you give in your post are your opinions, but why should I or anyone else accept your opinions? We also read the Bible, and we do not agree that your opinions are biblical.
That is exactly what this entire website is about, and it excels at it. Take a look around. Maybe a slow and careful reading of “Ecclesial Deism” or “Christ Founded a Visible Church” for a start. Look through the Index at the top of the page. There’s already lots to read that Fr. Kimel need not retype and summarize for you.
Jason,
This has already been addressed by others but to point it out even more clearly.
What CCC 1366 says
Is that a direct contradiction? The word that is different is the key word in your argument. One says “re-sacrifice .” The other says “sacrifice.” It is a sacrifice. It is not a re-sacrifice. THAT is the point.
Fr. Kimel, Thank you for the Reference. I shall look it up when time permits.
“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” – Clement of Rome “The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians”
“What is the ‘law of faith?’ (Romans 3:27) It is, being saved by grace”- St. John Chrysostom
“The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing; and He desires nothing of any one, except that confession be made to Him. For, says the elect David, “I will confess to the Lord; and that will please Him more than a young bullock that has horns and hoofs. Let the poor see it, and be glad.” ” – Clement of Rome
“A man’s free-will, indeed, avails for nothing except to sin, if he knows not the way of truth; and even after his duty and his proper aim shall begin to become known to him, unless he also take delight in and feel a love for it, he neither does his duty, nor sets about it, nor lives rightly. Now, in order that such a course may engage our affections, God’s “love is shed abroad in our hearts,” not through the free-will which arises from ourselves, but “through the Holy Ghost, which is given to us.” “- St. Augustine of Hippo
“Augustine of Hippo (354-430) wrote:
It is to the canonical Scriptures alone that I am bound to yield such implicit subjection as to follow their teaching, without admitting the slightest suspicion that in them any mistake or any statement intended to mislead could find a place. (8)
He [God] also inspired the Scripture, which is regarded as canonical and of supreme authority and to which we give credence concerning all the truths we ought to know and yet, of ourselves, are unable to learn. (9)
There is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments…in the innumerable books that have been written latterly we may sometimes find the same truth as Scripture, but there is not the same authority. Scripture has a sacredness peculiar to itself. (10)”
“Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) stated:
We believe the prophets and apostles because the Lord has been their witness by performing miracles…and we believe the successors of the apostles and prophets only in so far as they tell us those things which the apostles and prophets have left in their writings. (11)
Only to those books or writings which are called canonical have I learnt to pay such honour that I firmly believe that none of their authors have erred in composing them. (12) ”
Above two quotations from:
https://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=1193&var3=issuedisplay&var4=IssRead&var5=115
Jason #484,
I think you’ve been reading scare quotes ripped from context, and not Aquinas himself, if you seriously think he believed in anything like sola scriptura. :-)
But maybe I’m misunderstanding your use of him.
Peace,
Fred
Fred, at the time Sola Scriptura was undefined because it had not become a controversy. The word “trinity” did not exist to describe God until Tertullian used it but it was taught from the first verse of the Bible on. Though the fathers did not use the phrase Sola Scriptura, they did imply it’s implications. Roman Catholics tend to read those implications out of them either because they do not understand the doctrine (which I find is the usual case not only for Roman Catholics but also Evangelicals) or are against it for whatever reason.
Really the quote addresses inerrancy.
Jason @ #484
Let’s take these one-by-one:
I did my thesis (as a Protestant) on Clement & Tertullian’s doctrine of grace–a correlative analysis/synthesis. What you have is in an out-of-context excerpt of Clement that is suppose to “prove” something. For a Protestant who argued, as I did at the time, that Clement represented a kind of germinal move away from pure Reformed theology, and having re-read my work with humility, Clement’s understanding of salvation is an apologia for Catholic theology. Rather than do that, I’ll just assume you will go ahead and read all of it and come to a different conclusion here (from a Protestant website).
The Catholic Church agrees that we are saved by grace.
This goes against the early Church witness of public confessions if I’m to interpret this to mean “no need of a confessor”. When I confess to a priest, I confess to God directly through his appointed servant unless of course His Body is not in fact His Body. Also, notice Clement, the Pope is teaching authoritatively to “Paul’s church” in Corinth. Why should they care if he is the Bishop of Rome and why would he waste pen and ink to write them?
We agree. See Trent. Every one of these concepts is upheld. Now you can read into to say, “total depravity”, but apparently if I know the truth by revelation or nature, my will can do some good. However, we do need grace to respond to God for salvation which is the teaching of Trent. Nonetheless, we can reject that grace by our free will.
Since you put so much trust in these sayings to prove what you want it to say, how is it that St. Augustine doesn’t teach sola scriptura but rather the Petrine Office and the Eucharist as Body and Blood? Do those offend you? (this applies to St. Thomas as well of which I did not quote)
Peace to you
Jason #486
Yes, Tertullian introduced the new Latin word Trinitas, but the concept of the triune God was already in the liturgy/Sacred Tradition.
Pretty amazing that the Fathers did not use the term sola scriptura (no one until Luther), yet they did use the term Purgatory, Communion of Saints, Theotokos, and Petrine office. And yet that is an argument for sola scriptura, a kind of quasi-protestant development of doctrine?
Jason #486,
I didn’t say that you suggested St Thomas believed in sola scriptura per se. I questioned whether you had actually read Aquinas if you “think he believed in anything like sola scriptura.” He didn’t, and he didn’t imply otherwise either. Whoever ripped that quotation might have inferred it, but it is a false inference. Sorry.
Peace,
Fred
Jason,
Clement’s material precludes merit of unaided works, that is works apart from initial and congruous grace. So it isn’t proof of sola fide.
As for Chrysostom, the citations you give are an awfully thin read to support such a hefty claim given the amount of writing we have from Chrysostom. Second, neither of the major non-Protestant bodies (Catholic and Orthodox) deny that we are saved by grace or that grace works first. Nor do they deny that faith is a theological virtue which participates in salvation. What you would need from Chrysostom is the idea that faith is the only virtue by which the declaration of justice is applied to us, that faith itself is worthless so that the declaration isn’t grounded in the virtue of faith grounded in grace and that faith is merely a conduit for the transfer of moral credit. That is because the preceding is sola fide and Chrysostom never expresses that idea. It is also incumbent on anyone making such claims to actually show that he is expressing that (SF) idea given the thousand year separation between the Reformers and Chrysostom.
And one can find such expressions in Pelagius after all. (https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/sola-fide-in-a-church-father/ )
“But to one who does not work, but who believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness. When an ungodly person converts, God justifies him by faith alone, not for the good works he did not have.”
Pelagius, Commentary on Romans, 4:5
And I’d recommend reading the liturgy Chrysostom wrote and see how Protestant it strikes you as being.
As for Augustine’s treatment of grace and free will, I’ve never found a better exposition than Harry McSorley’s, Luther: Right or Wrong?-An Historical-Theological Analysis of Luther’s Major Work, the Bondage of the Will. McSorley’s work was a ten year study project co-funded Augsberg-Fortress Press and Newman Press. There really is nothing else like it.
As for Aquinas’s view on Scripture, I’d recommend taking a look at the excellent analysis of Persson, Sacra Doctrina: Reason and Revelation in Aquinas.
To all,
Regarding St. Augustine and his soteriology, Bryan Cross wrote an excellent piece on how Augustinian soteriology shaped medieval soteriology and how Catholic soteriology naturally extends out of St. Augustine’s many works:
St. Augustine on Law and Grace
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/st-augustine-on-law-and-grace/
Regarding St. Thomas of Aquinas, there is a paper I recently read about St. Thomas of Aquinas and his notions of doctrine of development, which I got from a link from Mike Liccione on Facebook (so it has to be good right?):
https://myweb.lmu.edu/ckaczor/articles/Aquinasondd.pdf
I think any reading of sola scriptura into the early Church really isn’t going to work out so well. Mike Liccione covers this topic in his article, “Mathison’s Reply to Cross and Judisch: A Largely Philosophical Critique”
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/
Best of luck, God bless.
-Steven Reyes
Jason, (re: #484)
I addressed St. Chrysostom’s position (briefly) in comment #211 in the “Keith Mathison’s Reply” thread.
As for St. Clement’s soteriology, I addressed that in “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Brent & Fr. Kimel,
Widely agreed upon “Foundational Principles” surely exist. Both liberal and conservative scholars agree the Apostle Paul’s first letter to the Corinthian Christians is to be dated to the AD 50s, no more that 25 years after Jesus’s death and within 3-8 years of the crucifixion event itself. Contained in this Letter is THE CREEDAL STATEMENT that has guided the “church universal” (body of believers of most ALL “denominations”) ever since as follows:
1 Corinthians 15:3-7 (New King James Version): 3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles.
“Eschatology (the study of last things, end times) is the thread that runs through the tapestry of the entire text of Scripture…the entire Bible is eschatological…from Genesis to Revelation, it is the chronicling of God’s redemptive plan for a fallen hummanity…’the majesty of Scripture culminating in the New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband’ (Hank Hanegraff, “The Apocalypse Code” p236-237, via http://www.equip.org)”:
Revelation 21:2-3 (New King James Version): 2 Then I, John,[a] saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God.
With the above in mind if we don’t understand where we are at in God’s time line, and what has been fulfilled and what is yet future, it just seems to this layperson that dogmatically asserting Biblical basis for ritualistic, sacramental (“The Mass” & “The Eucharist”), sainthood beliefs and practices — that can hardly be found in the very earliest stages/creeds of believers — should at least be downplayed if not downright avoided.
The discussion herein seems to miss “the forest through the trees” or, put another way, is a dangerous distraction from the task at hand (i.e. the Great Commission AND the acting out of loving one another as He loved us). Again, a kind of Pharassaic-legalism and idol worship that misses the point entirely. For the lost and fallen of this world, of which I count myself one but for His Grace, this stuff is so heady that few , if any, will be more than confused or discouraged from instead partaking in a stronger, deeper and more committed belief and the living of a life IN Christ.
Fr. Kimel has declined my request of him to simplify and to objectively (without biases) make the case on what the issues are that divide believers (in particular the CC from other “church bodies”), with the Bibilcal basis, pros and cons, for each differing view. Seems like the lost are entitled to such an explanation and that the CC, in particular, owes this to both believers and non-believers alike especially if the CC is taking the high road, and superiority (ranking) on such matters as it being “THE CHURCH.”
The very fact that you say, or seem to imply, that you don’t see in Scripture that Communion is to be done in “rememberance” of Him, if none other, precisely makes my point (see: Matthew 26:26 (New King James Version) Jesus Institutes the Lord’s Supper – 26 And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed[a] and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.”) Making the construct that the CC does on this IS representative of a kind of snobish-elitism and self-righteousness (substantiation, re-sacrifice, re-presenting), that has proven confusing, divisive, and to some incomprehensible. And then, even if we accept the transubstantiation…what does it really add to John 3:16, which calls for belief above all else?
I try to remain open to understanding the CC position on these and other matters incuding their/its’ deification of Mother Mary and other so-termed “saints”…but, again ,where you see no Biblical basis for such struggles, I clearly do. I have cited those for you. Mother Mary remains dead and buried, and she is not to have been made into an intercessory, or kind of “medium” by the CC through which believers can gain or obtain assistance in either their daily walk (sanctification) and certainly not their justification or salvation. True believers, “practicing Christians”, are assured of their salvation (Mark 8:35)…and:
2 Corinthians 5:15-18 (New King James Version)- 15 and He died for all, that those who live should live no longer for themselves, but for Him who died for them and rose again. 16 Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer. 17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new. 18 Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation,
Again, I did not create or invent what have arguably become the CC “obstacles” to the faith about which I speak, the CC has. By this I am not saying that Catholic believers are any less than others, but their “THE CHURCH” is also not the be all and end all of TRUTH either. As history clearly demonstrates…none can make the claim to inerrancy save the very Word itself.
I conclude then with cites on eschatological matters, and in particular,against the invective and rather dangerous teachings of the likes of personages like Tim LaHaye (Left Behind), Hal Lindsey, John Hagee (Christian Zionist) Rod Parsley (anthe list goes on and on) , so that our readers here can have access to credible scholars and Apologists (defenders of the one and only true faith) who have rightly interpreted Scripture as literature as opposed to a woodenly literalistic genre (certainly, the Holy Spirit, who divinely inspired the inerrant Word, was not “word challenged”).
Such persons (like Hank Hanegraaff – The Bible Answer Man, referenced above) present credible exegesis that our Lord’s “coming on clouds” is a judgement metaphor, a hyperbolic language used throughout OT and again by Christ in the NT and through to John in Revelation — to help establish that my prior posted statements that Christs Olivet Discourse (His greatest prophecy before His Ascension) was largely already fulfilled around the time of His ascension to Royal Rule and the subsequent (within a generation) destruction of the Jerusalem Temple and Jewish Wars around AD 70…when Satan was and continues to be bound until the 2nd Coming of our Lord. Understanding such matters is critical to all believers. The evil we have seen in the world since such binding is man-generated…such that blame and solutions can be properly grounded and so that reality can be clearly seen by the light of our Lord:
JP Holdings & Dee Dee Warren: https://www.tektonics.org/esch/pretsum.html
Peace & Love in His Name, Paul
Jeremiah,
You get it. The Eucharist should be the meal that brings us together (Communion), but it is the meal that divides because it has the same effect as in John 6:
“Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.” These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum.”
“Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before? It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh 22 is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him. And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.” As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him.
On the matter of the Eucharist (Holy Communion – the Lords Supper)…the better Scriptural reference that I should have given above, regarding this act really being based upon REMEMBERANCE and NOT the CC TRANSUBSTANTIATION (and that’s more than a mouth full that I spelled incorrectly above in prior posts) is:
Luke 22:19-20 (New King James Version) – 19 And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
Now, onto the more recent comments by Jeremiah on the Eucharist (as Catholics refer to it, or the Lords Supper or Communion as most others do), and mine about the Bible needing to be read as literature, with all genre uses in mind…we are taught, I believe, that Christ Himself spiritualized his own prophecy in John 2: 19-21 as follows:
John 2:19-21 (New King James Version) – 19 Jesus answered and said to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” 20 Then the Jews said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will You raise it up in three days?” 21 But He was speaking of the temple of His body.
So, in the same way I believe the CC has misinterpreted, in a most literal and errant way, what Christ was alluding to here by his use of body and blood, which are analogous to the life and Spirit that is Him. As the Temple is the type and He the antitype, and the life is in the blood, those who are IN CHRIST drink of everlasting waters of life…but none of this is meant in a physical, or TRANSUBSTANTIATION sense, nor is it to be interpreted or practiced as such. We are simply to REMEMBER Him in everything we do in life, and to heed His teachings.
Again, I am a layperson, simply trying my best to grasp the mysteries as I study reliable scholars and also reach reasonable understandings of His Word by the help of His Holy Spirit. Christ was not trying to confound us, He was instead offering us discernable truth that we must not overly complicate or morph into esoteric beliefs and ritualistic practices that few can comprehend.
Quoting Hanegraaff again: “Hebrews states…that in Christ, the old covenant order, including temple sacrifices, are ‘obsolete’ and would ‘soon disappear'” (Heb 8:13). “The type and shadow of the first and second temples do not find their substance in a Tribulation temple followed by a millenial temple, but in a church BUILT OUT OF LIVING STONES (caps added by me for emphasis) comprised of Jew and Gentile with Jesus Christ himself the capstone. Jesus made His typological relationship to the temple explicit when he pronouned, ‘One greater that the temple is here’ (Matt 12:6). All old covenant types and shadows including the Holy Land, the Holy City (Jerusalem), and the holy temple have been fulfilled in the holy Christ.” Hence, Rev. 21:2-3.
Paul (#494),
Whether a “foundational principle” is widely agree-upon means nothing. Truth is not democratic. And you undermine yourself by insisting that we all stick to what you consider these principles to be, and in the same paragraph state that they only unite “most” of the “body of believers” that you identify as the Church. And the chronology of New Testament books is hardly a widely agreed-upon matter. When I was in seminary, my own professors disagreed as to the dating of some books, sometimes by a substantial margin. And they were all good Protestants.
As for “the task at hand” and the Catholic Church’s alleged distractions therefrom: I am not distracted from it. Neither were the billions of priests, religious, and laity down through history who have witnessed to the world of the salvation we have in Christ. Many things are, in fact, complicated and confusing in theology, and it has always been that way. Peter says outright that Paul’s letters are complicated and confusing. Perhaps Paul should have abandoned all of those Pharisaical complexities, and simplified down to the issues that were dividing believers then? But he didn’t, of course, and we can thank God for that.
For the record, what I don’t see in Scripture is your statement that the Eucharist is not a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice. It is indeed a commemoration. But notice in your own quotation from Matthew that Jesus says “This is my body.” Are you saying that it isn’t? The Catholic Church teaches that Christ’s ONE sacrifice is made present to us in the Eucharist. It explicitly teaches that the Eucharist is NOT a “re-sacrificing.” That is a Protestant straw man.
The Catholic Church does not “deify” Mary or the Saints. Mary is a created being, although extraordinarily blessed, and needed to be saved by grace the same as the rest of us. You say the saints are dead and buried. The gospels say that two of them appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration. Christ told one of the thieves that he would be with him in paradise that day, not that he would be dead and buried until the resurrection. From the earliest writings, Christians have been confident that the saved are in heaven after they die, although their bodies are not yet resurrected.
If you find the things you mention in your comment are “obstacles,” it is because you have not taken the time to understand them. They are not complicated. Seriously. They aren’t. There are complicated things in theology, but presumably you believe in the Trinity, right? There’s not a theologian alive who thinks that’s a simple subject! Every criticism of the Catholic Church that you’ve made in your comments has been inaccurate because it has criticized the Church for teaching things that she does not teach. You need to take the time to understand Catholicism before you criticize it, and you clearly have not done so.
Paul (#496)
Regarding your follow-up on the Eucharist, you say:
Any particular reason I should trust your private interpretation on these verses? Jesus says in John 6 “Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life in you.” Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10 “The cup that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?” and in chapter 11 that “anyone who eats and drinks without discerning (or “perceiving” in other translations) the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself.” He does not call the bread and wine mere remembrances, he calls them the body and blood of Christ. Transubstantiation is merely an explanation of how Christ’s body and blood can be truly present while the bread and wine still appear to be bread and wine. Your statement, on the other hand, that Communion really means “simply to REMEMBER Him in everything we do” directly contradicts the words of Christ and Paul.
Hi Paul, have you read the Transubstantiation article on the main page? It’s not a robust argument like you might be looking for, but it shows wide patristic support for the doctrine. Here it is if you’re interested in taking a look. The comments about the Eucharist are getting off topic here and would be better placed there anyway.
Paul,
While I am not Catholic, let me address some of your remarks on behalf of Fr. Kimel.
If there were good reasons for taking Hanegraff as an expert in the field of anything related to biblical exegesis your case might bear more weight. But Hanegraaff not only has no training in any relevant field, but has all the hall marks of being a poor steward. I along with many other former employees know that he ranks up their with the Borgia popes. Hank is far from being credible or an apologist or both. If he were at least an apologist, he wouldn’t need someone off microphone to feed him answers for the radio show. I know, I used to work in the studio. S for his credible exegesis of prophecy, Hank’s work is pretty much ripped off from David Chilton and the army of Postmillenialists who wrote mountains long before he ever found it. Hank has a history of plagiarizing others works, as he did with D. James Kennedy, among others. This is all well documented.
Given the vast amount of scholarship on how ritualistic Judaism was, I find it far more reasonable to interpret various phrases, terms of art and allusions within that context. (Such as “the prayers” in acts 2:42) This is even more relevant since figures like Julius Africanus informs us that even up till 200 AD descendents of Jesus’ relatives are still members of the church. 200 is late enough to easily establish a robust Eucharistic theology along with Episcopacy by divine right.
And it seems that you assume that Protestants do not have their own rituals that do not find their place in the earliest creeds and documents. Take Calvin’s famed example of permitting women to take communion. Surely communion was of the earliest institution in the church and yet we have not one single clear example, let alone command to allow women to partake of the eucharist. Yet evangelicals especially allow women to partake without a second thought.
Further, such a strict methodology wrongly identifies the scriptures as some kind of textbook, which contains explicit instructions written to the general public. Such is not the case as the apostles felt free to write some things and yet leave the rest unsaid until they appeared in person. (3 Jn 1:13) If Christianity were a religion crafted by Descartes, Hume or Kant the methodology you employ would be helpful. But Christianity is not a religion of man’s reconstruction from a text, but a continuous society of people. A religion of tradition will include things that outpace reason and evidence or at least sufficient evidence in a number of cases.
As to saintly veneration and invocation, I am surprised that you missed the first in Rev 3:9 where Jesus indicates that he will make their persecutors come and bow down before them. I am not clear what we would have to add to make that saintly veneration, so perhaps you can fill that in for us.
You argue that such things amount to nothing more than speculations and bad ones at that and thereby detract from the great commission, but this assumes that we can carry that out without knowing what biblical worship, not to mention Christology, is. And certainly contemporary Protestant worship doesn’t get to be assumed as some common neutral denominator of worship.
I think Fr. Kimel’s reply is most wise. If you are really interested in interacting with a given tradition, then it is necessary than do more than fill a combox with remarks. It is necessary to take up and read some significant works by its representative teachers. And I suspect having known Fr. Kimel for a while that this was at least in part his aim, to encourage you to do so. For him to carry such a thing out would likely require a series of books.
As for remembrance and the eucharist, it is well known that lexigraphically anemnesis doesn’t amount to a simple recollection there. To this day Jews perform a “remembrance” of the Passover with the belief that they are mystically and supernaturally transported back with Moses during the first Exodus. Consequently, citing “remembrance” is therefore not sufficient to vindicate a memorialist view of the eucharist, which incidentally, most of the Protestant Reformers opposed and that quite violently.
Consequently, Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, High Church Anglicans, and Calvinists, are not making something out of nothing when they hold the eucharist higher than a memorial. It is the memoralists who are on the short end of the biblical stick.
As for snobbish elitism, it might be so if it were a making of the Catholic Church or any other church. But if it is taught by Christ, his Apostles and their successors, then it cannot be so. So your construal of the matter is simple fallacious in the form o question begging.
As for the deification of the saints, certainly you mean this in a pejorative way and so this would require a demonstration on your part. Be that as it may, certainly the bible does speak of deification in terms of being conformed to the Ikon/image of Christ, partaking of the divine nature and such. The meaning of these passages cannot be chalked up to “moral qualities” for that assumes an entire ethical theory not in evidence where such qualities are created effects of divine activity. Further, such effects could never qualify as the “divine nature” as Peter speaks for the divine nature cannot be created. Added to this is the fact that while the bible speaks of God alone being immortal, it also indicates that he shares not only his immortality with his saints, but his glory and it is impossible for those things to be created as well.
Consequently, if the Catholic church or any other body views Mary and the saints existing in a deified way, then it is certainly consistent with biblical teaching and has the longest of pedigrees any doctrine could hope to have. Everything else is just an attempt to get away from the biblical teaching and the witness of the church.
As for invocation, certainly Paul prays for the Christian dead (2 tim 1:16-18) without any qualm. And Jesus himself indicates that those dead in body are alive to God. (matt 22:32) To speak of God’s holy ones, agios, saints, as if they were annihilated at death as you do seems at the least sub-biblical. And certainly Prophets of old rendered aid from heaven as in the case of Elijah and being beyond the threshold of this life seemed to present neither to them nor to God any great difficulty in doing so. And it didn’t transmute Elijah into a “medium” of sorts either. Consequently the early church prayed for the dead, but also invoked saints and angels in their prayers, much as the Psalms call upon the angels to praise and worship the Lord within the prayer that is the psalm. So the question is, since the Bible and the early church have prayers for the dead does your church follow that example or no?
And if we take the biblical teaching on deification seriously, then it is no great wonder to see as plausible that the saints can aid us, given that they have been divinely empowered by Christ. It is only on the crudest of caricatures that one would think that the saints help us by their own power, for any saint would always characterize themselves as an unprofitable servant.
As for assurances, certainly there is a measure for Christians, but a measure doesn’t imply a full dose. Certainly Paul would not speak of those who receive grace “in vain” (2 Cor 6:1)
WOW…you folks are really piling on here, which kind of makes my point.
As stated by me early on in this forum, I am a layperson believer, so of course I have not had the time, or likely even the abilities, to study and understand all of these areas of division, or what “body” is more “right” than the next.
What I have done is expressed commonly held perceptions about the CC, and admitedly do not know how much of them have merrit or don’t; hence, my statement, out the outset, that Dr. Anders article as well as a program on EWTN – The Journey Home with Marcus Grodi – have, in certain perhaps positive ways, favorably influenced me to look at CC in a new and more informed manner. That being said…(and I study things Biblical and read extensively)…I am (a member of a non-denominational church) and not a monk, scholar or priest/minister/pastor/bishop, et al. Therefore, we return to some of my foundational points — that all of this is far to heady for me and I suspect millions of others, and I simly do not find that Christ taught in such a manner as to confound the masses to who He was appealing.
Further, I believe that you all are splitting hairs over matters that are not substantive and certainly not salvific matters — regardless of what the CC, a Pope or whoever has to say. We are the lost, all in need of being rescued/saved – scholars and plebs alike – and His message in John 3:16 is clear enough to me to demonstrate that much of the rest of our religiosity and ritualistic practices are, basically, meaningless…in context and in terms of ultimate realities.
I categorically object to and reject Perry Robinson’s castigating criticisms of Hank Hanegraaff (www.equip.org), who I have met and spent considerable time with, read most all of his rather well received and respected books, and who personally and through his offices at the Christian Research Institute, have given nothing less than the best in help and guidance on matters theological and, more importantly or directly, regarding faith and in my Christian walk. Of course, I am well familiar with the attacks against him…but I am also aware of the facts and those who endorse him in light of such facts. Mind you Catholics, Hanegraaff is one of a few who have defended you against brutal attacks by persons like Tim LaHaye in his Apocalpyse Code book, p.234 where he is quoting Rev 17:1-5 and says:
“LaHaye, for one, is absolutely certain that the mother of prostitutes and the abominations of the earth covered with blasphemous names if none other than the Roman Catholic Church. Not even Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code approaches the invective launched by LaHaye against this already vulnerable target. In biblical history, however, only one nation is inextricably linked to the moniker “harlot.” And that nation is ancient Israel.”
I freely admit I am not up to debating each of you, nor should I be made to feel so. There are many better skilled and learned Apologists who do that just fine. So, in addition to some of the resource links I have already provided, I offer, on the Transubstantiation subject and other matters we have been discussing, the following:
https://www.gotquestions.org/search.php?zoom_sort=0&zoom_query=Transubstantiation
About Them: https://www.gotquestions.org/about.html
“Got Questions” are new to me…but seem a balanced and reasonable place for laypersons and others to go to for insight and answers of the type I have been seeking of Fr. Kimel, Anders and others of you herein.
Blessings to you all, Paul
Well, Paul, it seems like we have nowhere left to go in this discussion. You haven’t actually interacted with anything the rest of us have said here, and instead continually assert your own opinions as if they are beliefs we all hold in common. None of the points Perry or I have made are difficult to understand, you just have to stop and listen. There’s nothing confounding about the Church’s teachings, you just haven’t made the effort to learn them accurately. You say “splitting hairs,” as if any of the commandments of Christ are so unimportant that we shouldn’t worry about following them. You say they are not “salvific issues” as if you had insights into theology that none of the thousands of theologians, Catholic and Protestant, who have studied and debated them over the centuries. And “Got Questions” is not an unbiased source, as a look at their statement of faith clearly reveals. If you want to honestly seek answers about the Catholic Church, listen to what the Catholic Church says about itself.
It’s not about debating. You made some pretty large and serious statements about the Catholic Church that are not true. We tried to correct your misunderstandings. That’s it. If you’re not interested in understanding better, and you’re not interested in debate, why are you posting here? What can we do that will be of benefit to you? None of bear you any ill will, but I’m honestly confused as to what you’re after.
Dear separated brother in Christ Paul,
I can understand that this blog can seem heady at times, but debates on a post about Calvin have a way of going in that direction. To keep things simple, you may want to examine two questions:
1) Is the Eucharist the Body and Blood of Jesus?
&
2) Is the Catholic Church the Church that Christ established? If not, which church?
Now to say that if Christ taught a divine liturgy that brings salvation to mankind because “he so loved the world”; those rituals would count for something right? Why do all the Apostolic churches worship the same, ancient, ritualistic way? Could it be that Christ taught his disciples how to worship?
These are simple questions. You said you have expressed commonly held “perceptions” but in order for real dialogue to occur we should get beyond perceptions. If I started a relationship with you by saying, I “perceive” because I read “such and such” that you are a blasted fool, it probably wouldn’t start out on the right foot. Further, if I told you I “perceived” what is most sacred to you is in fact not but is rather meaningless (let’s say your mother), we might go to fisticuffs. So, since this is not the forum for sparring, if you presume to speak against the Body and Blood of Christ in the Most Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, you should expect a spirited reply.
Hanagraff isn’t a theologian, so Perry is right, but he is someone trying to get to the truth. We can appreciate that. We also appreciate that Hanagraff recognizes the Pope cannot be the anti-christ because the anti-christ will deny that Christ is the Son of God. Perry can be less charitable (look at his self-subscribed gravitar) than is desirable but he is vastly learned and staunchly Orthodox but can be defensive at times and rather terse. These forums have a way of letting us all hide behind our gravitars and I imagine he would be more affable in a pub. Sometimes he forgets that most Christians these days were born into their traditions and aren’t all blessed with the time/money to become an academic talisman.
There are copious resources here at CTC that can help you answer many of your questions. As someone who isn’t pretending to be a ninja theologian/philosopher, I wouldn’t be too concerned with the dialectic. Theologians are like watching pigs rolling around in the mud, after a while you realize they like it.
God bless you in your journey. Through the Son of The Immaculate Conception.
Brent
Brent,
Come now…..I rather think Perry’s gravitar looks like what I imagine Cyril looked like when responding to Nestorius or Maximus when exposing Pyrrhus’s stubbornness :-)
Seriously, if you ever interacted with Perry individually, you would know not make foolish presumptions by his gravitar.
Paul,
Let me not try to pile on.
On the one hand you make claims against Catholicism, that it is wrong, teaches false doctrines and such and then you plead out that you are a layman and it is the other side making things complicated unnecessarily. I am not sure how you can consistently maintain both positions. It seems like you are being a tad inconsistent.
And certainly, the Reformers themselves didn’t take these to be trifle matters either, which is why there was a Reformation. So I can’t see how your position is consistent even on Protestant principles.
As for Hank, it is beyond dispute that the man has no training in theology, philosophy, history or any related field. He is very good at memorizing the words of others, but he lacks any significant understanding. When CRI had research staff, they were required to have not only a BA, but an MA as well which is a standard that Hank could never meet.
As for what I claimed, I am not repeating second hand information but reporting eyewitness testimony. I saw the things of which I speak. Practically the entire research staff saw the same prior to being eliminated. And besides, not only did I work for the man, I dated his eldest daughter to boot.
Brent,
It would be very helpful to the discussion if we kept our judgments about other people out of the discussion as they do not serve the stated goal, which is dialog with the aim of truth. I don’t think readers want to hear what everyone thinks of everyone else.
That said, my gravitar is just that. A picture from a fictional film. Don’t make a big deal out of it or infer much from it.
I am well aware that most Christians these days, (and at every other time) are born into their respective traditions. On this blog where practically every author has at least a BA and most likely an MA or better in a relevant field, I expect a fairly high level of discourse. I also expect that if people are going to make bold claims that they need to step up to the plate or be quiet.
As for being blessed with time and money, I had neither. I was kicked of the house by my 16th birthday and on my own, working at a grocery store and finishing high school, living out of my little VW bug for six months. I then got a better job and worked rotating shifts during the week and put myself through a state college, with my last two years taking 24 units a semester and graduated with a 3.8.
And frankly, I am all for chiding the average Christian a bit because let us be honest, most Christians in the western world who have decent means read slop, follow pastor Bob of such and so mega church personality cult and then get bent when Bob runs off with millions and the secretary. The guys on TV bear a good amount of responsibility, but so do their followers. Sorry if that’s terse. Nuff said.
Brothers,
Perry, you are, in my opinion (I hope you see that I am entitled to one too) are being unjust and also unfair in your criticisms of Hank Hanegraaff and his considerable accomplishments as president of CRI, despite your now long past affiliation with him and the colleagues who are no longer with him at CRI. You fail to recognize Elliot Miller, Stephen Ross, Paul Young and others who remained and who all together have enjoyed not only a personal but also an excellent and longer working relationship with Hank than you.
You should count yourself blessed to have dated one of Hank’s daughters, as it is a testament to his being a wonderful father and son of Christ, as well as a wonderful leader in the faith. I have met most all of his kids and loved them all, as well as his lovely wife. What an exemplary and wonderful Christian family.
Since your time, Hank has produced considerable books that have been awarded Gold Medalion status, and he has sold more books than most all other Apologists. Yes, that does not make him right…but many of the right kind of authorities think he has gotten it right in what he says and teaches (endorsementsfor his opus “The Apocalypse Code by the likes of : Gary M Bruce; Colin Chapman; Gary DeMar; Steve Gregg; Lee Strobel; Paul Maier; Gretchen Passantino (a name you well know for supporting Hank as CRI President in the errant challenges that nearly topelled CRI); and Stephen Sizer). For added example, and as you likely know, the well respected Dr. Norman Geisler awarded Hank with an honorary Divinity Degree, and they agree on most all Apologetic issues. Is Dr. Geisler, from the other-side of the CC, acceptable to you as a recognized authority on things Biblical? Likely not…hence, point made.
Hank took over from Walter Martin, a wonderful man of Christ, who himself found Hank a considerable talent, despite Martin’s one daughter’s later disagreements with Hank, and the exact and only man for the job. Under most any objective measure, Hank has indeed “measured up”! Many notable personages think so (see above), even GotQuestions agrees with this assessment while respectfully disagreeing with Hanks orthodox/partial preterist eschatological perspectives.
I, and for sure likely only one of many, found his Bible Answer Books exactly what I needed to open my heart to the calling of His Holy Spirit and I do credit Hank, along with Lee Strobel (Case for the Creator and Case for Christ), with being instrumental in my opening my hardened and lost heart to the Word of our Lord. I was brought to repentance and belief as a direct result of their considerable contributions to the faith. They have proven themselves wonderful instruments of His Grace. You can’t get much more real and valuable than that, at least not for this confirmed believer, and such facts simply do not allow for your kind of character assasinations to hold water.
I have provided you all with cites and resources for my positions, yet, as one might expect, none of them are of merit to you and are either dismissed outright or otherwise unjustly denigrated: GotQuestions (it’s not of CC persuasion); Tektonics-JP Holding & Dee Dee Warren (orthodox/partial preterism); CRI (Hank Hanegraaff and the prestigious “Christian Research Journal”); George Bryson (The Darkside of Calvinism-the Calvinist Caste System & “The Five Points of Calvinism – Weighed and Found Wanting”); etc.
By these cites I have established that the peculiar rituals and other practices of the CC are of concern and confusion to so many persons and in particular non-Catholic believers, and are shared by countless persons as well, and for at least a thousand or more years now (certainly Calvin and Luther thought so, amongst many others even though they and Anglican Episcopalians hold to many of the sacramental “rituals” for lack of a better descriptive term).
So, as I have tried to point out, I am not alone in having such concerns…yet, as I have clearly expressed…I remain open to the input of persons like Dr. Anders and Marcus Grodi (both former Prebyterians), and others, who often can and do help in gaining a theological insight and perhaps some degree of appreciation for things Catholic. And, in answer to some of your questions of me and my purpose for posting here, THAT is the reason I found myself commenting on this Forum in my first post (#449), in direct response to Dr. Anders article and having seen him on The Journey Home. And yes, I also admit to trying to add perspectives and make a case for other ways of looking at things that do not jibe with the CC. I believe I have a right to do that in the kind of respectful manner I have so done. Some of you have not shown such restraint.
While I understand that you do not like the views of a cite like https://www.gotquestions.org/top20.html … at least for the reason that they are not EWTN or some other CC views “supporter”, they nonetheless express largely Biblicaly sound, well researched answers, to many of the questions and “problem perceptions” I have cited to you that many see about the CC…and, in fact, they have been more helpful to me (as I suspect they would be to other seekers), and in a more concise format and manner than Fr. Kimel or some others posting here. Seekers need clarity and concise answers, as do believers to constructively reinforce their faith.
Thank you to those of you who correctly perceived the sincerity in my comments, questions and observations that often find the “nuances” in CC beliefs, as expressed in things like the Eucharist, Mass, Transubstantiation, deification of Mother Mary (again, no believer would not want to respect, love and follow a “saint”…but what the CC does in this area seems, to an outsider at least, to go beyond the one and only intecessor, Jesus Christ, and in ways that many do not find healthy) and so forth, hard to embrace, understand or to practice with their very heart and soul. Again, from one laypersons perspective, so many of these divisive matters just seem so off point that it’s hard to see any justification for them in the first place. Objectively speaking, as much as possible for me that is, it just appears that the CC is trying to justify itself and place itself, in things spritual, at the top of the heirarchy and, in the process, somewhat mistaking its’ place in His Kingdom and eschatological plan for mankind.
Grace and peace to you all, and so long for now as I obviously have a lot more study to do,
Paul
Canadian,
My comment was directed at what I’ve read in Perry’s threads. Is he not “vastly learned and staunchly Orthodox?” If we are really trying to charitably bring people to the truth, it’s important that we hold back the “fool” card lest we make the faith seem foolish; especially for those who “throw up the white flag” like Paul did.
I took the time to ctrl + about 10 times on Perry’s gravitar and I would hope St. Cyril looks more like this than a character from star wars???
Perry, I meant no harm and I imagine you took none by the absence of a response to me, and I’m also pretty sure you know you have a sharp tongue. Apparently you are not only learned in things ancient, but are an eyewitness to the very staff of Mr. H. A tough act to follow indeed.
Regarding Paul, for his particular color of Christianity we may want to charitably remember that (1) Perry, you are right that Paul’s thoughts probably wouldn’t fly amongst Reformed Christians, but than again that is a minority of Protestantism today and probably doesn’t disturb him but (2) you are right, his treatment of sacred theology maybe warranted the barrage. Wether we intended it to be as such, that was his perception. While philosophers and theologians enjoy a wrangle of your caliber, such a wrangle is not the prerequisite for participating in this blog (unless I missed it in the terms of service, you know how those can be). Further, I think we all should try to put ourselves in their shoes. We need not make such efforts for “Andrew”, “Turretin Fan”, “JJS” et al., but they don’t every speak in the spirit of what Paul’s last comment was. Long story-short, we need to make sure we hear someone’s heart not just their mind. Nevertheless, Paul would do well to seek to understand what all of you have presented to him in rebut to his comments.
Also, a lack of education doesn’t exclude the possibility that someone can have a vast knowledge and understanding of things sacred. Many of the saints, even doctors of the Church had little formal training. I’m not ascribing that to Hank H., but I would rather, as an argument, focus on what Hank H. says than on his lack of training.
Immaculate Mary, pray for us!
Paul,
It is going to be important for you to read actual source documents and not just the regurgitation of those documents from someone with a financial interest for their particular ministry or with a strong desire to simply prove a point. You can, however do that, but in fairness you should read the Catholic sources as well. I would be more than happy to give you simple explanations of the Catholic faith “off=line” at blessedsacrament2010 ‘at’ gmail ‘dot’ com.
If you are not wanting this to be a primarily academic journey for you or feel you don’t have the tools to wade through all the data, I would suggest praying every day about the Catholic faith. Ask the Lord “Is that your Church” or “Is the Eucharist Jesus”. Also, go to a local Catholic parish and pray in the Church. We believe Jesus is there in a unique way “until the end of the age”. Ask Him questions and seek out the truth in a spirit of gentleness.
Peace to you on your journey,
Brent
Perry,
Agreed. Nuff said. Now, back to how Calvin “made me Catholic”…
As someone who works professionally in adult education, I find your personal story inspiring.
God bless,
Brent
Paul, I would say you should go to God’s Word and see what it says about Christ and His church. That is the only place where you know you are hearing God and the Holy Spirit never works apart from His Word and Sacrements.
1 Corinthians 10:16 (English Standard Version)
16(A) The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ?(B) The bread that we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ?
Bread is clearly still bread though the body of Christ is clearly present, the wine is clearly wine though the blood of Christ is clearly present. Why try to explain the Real presence via Transubstantiation or the Calvinist spiritual view when one can simply accept God’s word at face value? Not that the Zwinglians would ever accept anythng at face value. :-)
Jason,
The passage you cited does not say “bread is clearly still bread”, it says that which we bless and break is a participation. From a purely linguistic standpoint it very much leaves open the possibility that the bread and wine change after the blessing/breaking. Also, so that we don’t isogete, let’s consider your passage in light of Christ’s words, “This is my body” (“this is” being the operative phrase that points to, at the least linguistically, the possibility of a ontological change) and “Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood” (which we could ask is this metaphor or is he speaking literally?–these are both plausible possibilities when I just consider the words themselves). The Church teaches and I believe that there is an ontological change and that he is speaking literally. Christ’s non-figurative use of the verb “to chomp” seems to make this clear and the fact that many of his disciples left him also evidences that this was a hard saying for Jews to believe (I find nothing difficult in Hebrew theology for someone to spiritually partake of God’s words *alternative interpretation* since this is what they had been doing the entire N.T.) So, we might say that I’m accepting God’s word “at face value”.
Also, we should ask ourselves which direction our exegesis runs: Paul through the words of Christ or Christ through the words of Paul. This seems to me to be one of the protestant errors; they make Christ’s words conform to their understanding of Paul.
Peace to you on your journey,
Brent
Brent 488- It isn’t out of context, I read the text myself.
“However, we do need grace to respond to God for salvation which is the teaching of Trent. Nonetheless, we can reject that grace by our free will.”
If you need God’s grace to “respond to God for Salvation” then the will is not free but bound.
“Also, notice Clement, the Pope is teaching authoritatively to “Paul’s church” in Corinth. Why should they care if he is the Bishop of Rome and why would he waste pen and ink to write them?”
I did not know I posted anything about the Papacy but at any rate in Clement’s time all the Bishops were equal. Note that the Bishop of Jerusalem presided over the first church council, not Rome. Also, Paul rebuked the supposed first “Pope” openly.
“Since you put so much trust in these sayings to prove what you want it to say, how is it that St. Augustine doesn’t teach sola scriptura but rather the Petrine Office and the Eucharist as Body and Blood? Do those offend you? (this applies to St. Thomas as well of which I did not quote)”
Brent, you’ve never read the “Book of Concord” have you? Also, if the Father’s did not believe Sola Scriptura implicitly then why do they appeal so much to the scriptures? The Scriptures more than anything else, especially the earliest fathers?
Jason,
If the volume of scripture citations and overall use were the determining factor in defining sola scriptura then the Catholic Church would be solaist of them all. Our current pope is a good example.
Jason,
There is nothing logically necessary about God’s grace being irresistible. There is, however, an irresistible temptation for Lutherans of your color to resist the plain reading of the text and import your own irresistible interpretation. It is plainly God’s will that “none should perish but all should come to eternal life” yet that, in fact, is not the case in reality. Why? Free will. So, neither his gratuitousness or his Divine will by His divine plan circumvents His divine gift of freedom and the resulting ability of man to respond to his love freely.
As to the Papacy, I was making a reference to the tenor of Pope St. Clement’s epistle. You weren’t making the point but your text was. As the the authority of the Petrine Office, the first Church council was in Jerusalem because that was where the Church was headquartered at the time. James was a pastor but Peter was still Peter. As Acts 15 records:
“The apostles and the elders came together to look into this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brethren, you know that [fn] in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, testified to them giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He also did to us…”
This looks like the Petrine Office clearing things up to me. Bryan Cross has demonstrated in another place that Paul’s contention with Peter wasn’t over the teaching but over his hypocritical actions (Gal 2:12-Paul himself calls Peter, John and James “pillars” although that doesn’t necessarily imply equality). No Catholic claims the Pope is free from all personal sin.
No, I have never read the BOC. However, I wasn’t born Lutheran and in my journey to become Catholic the Lutheran case was rather not compelling. I did read about 40,000 pages of text in my journey to the CC, but the BOC wasn’t one of them. Nonetheless, I did read a lot of of Luther’s original documents, his catechism, etc. When I get leisure time, I’ll take a stab at it.
Regarding sola scriptura, Pope Benedict XVI and the CCC references or appeals to scripture copiously. Neither affirm sola scriptura. So, I’m uncertain what that “proves”.
Jason,
If perhaps I can address some of your comments to Brent. It is my understanding of St. Augustine that the free will is not fully free prior to regeneration in the sense that it cannot choose to act morally correctly according to and in participation with the will of God. It is my understanding from some persons who have read St. Thomas of Aquinas that this can be understood in the notion that man cannot act towards a supernatural end without being aided by grace because it is not within man’s nature to aim towards the supernatural and in this sense without grace one aims in all his acts towards a natural end rather than a supernatural end. I am not an expert on St. Augustine’s conception of free will but it is my understanding from reading portions of Iustitia Dei, by Alister McGrath that St. Augustine does not literally believe that people are incapable of acting freely which is part of human nature but that the will in a sense is not truly free because it cannot aim towards those supernatural works which would merit salvation. I would agree that in a sense the will is more free in a sense after regeneration but this is because man can instead aim himself at what he should aim for, love of God.
As you are well aware of your claim about St. Clement is going to be hotly contested about whether or not all bishops held an equality or whether the bishop of Rome held a sort of primacy over the others. It may appear to some that the fact that he is exhorting the Corinthians to act in a certain manner and that he should extend his hands in the affairs of another church may be an act of prerogative or authority upon the Corinthian church.
Whether the St. James presided over the council of Jerusalem is probably also going to be hotly contested in that some might see St. Peter as having stopped all deliberation and debate and spoken with authority concerning the subject matter at hand. That being said it isn’t a set of data that can’t be accounted for within the Catholic perspective of the reading of Acts.
St. Paul having rebuked St. Peter also doesn’t really speak much about papal primacy or papal infallibility if that is perhaps what you are implying in your statement about St. Peter being rebuked. I would certainly have hoped that many Christians would have rebuked some of the early Renaissance popes for their improper behavior and on some occasions in history there are instances where the pope was rebuked by other Christians without disbelieving in his authority as pastor of the visible Church.
Perhaps if I may chime in here too, I have not read the Book of Concord, and the Church Fathers need not at all believe in sola scriptura in order to appeal so much to the Scriptures. The Scriptures were and are a normative means of determining the faith, Catholic will ardently affirm this, we too believe in the inerrant nature of the Scriptures as well as that it is profitable and good for the teaching of the faith. What is interesting perhaps is that the doctrines of the Church Fathers hold a cohesive tradition in a sense; those Christians who diverged from the cohesive tradition of the Church in their exegesis of the Bible were often deemed heretics. The Church Fathers were each brought up within the tradition of the Church and were taught by the liturgy and the common tradition of the Church even prior to their reading of the Scriptures. In my readings of the Church Fathers it seems to me that they are more properly trying to expound, defend, and widen or make the teachings from the traditions of the Church better known or more explicit. I think this is perhaps why the early Church maintained itself (largely) within a certain bounds of what we call orthodoxy today, that is that the early Church was very slow in adding on new ideas based on varying exegesis and that schismatics and heretics who did not fit that tradition of the Church were cut off and never really had much of a chance surviving apart from the Church. Perhaps to testify to this is that the early Church did not branch out into many thousands of denominations that continued to split, but rather we see that there is a great devotion and love for the Church as one, holy, and apostolic, that is that there was a normative tradition within the Church that her members were expected to defend as if they were defending the dignity of their own mother. This is one reason why I do not think that the early Church believed in sola scriptura. It’s not perhaps as nuanced as many of the philosophical tracts here on Called to Communion and probably is not as persuasive, but perhaps my perspective on the manner may help you see how some Catholics are addressing the matter.
Paul at #501:
I agree. These are difficult academic questions. Figuring them out on an academic level, as many of the guys here have, requires advanced knowledge of history, biblical languages, theology, and philosophy. Even something so basic as the justification question–especially the justification question–cannot be resolved simply by consulting an English translation of the New Testament. Most Christians do not have the time or capacity to explore the issues academically. Yet it’s important to get the answer right. If you recognize that these really are complicated issues, you have two choices as a Protestant: trust someone else’s academic opinion, or become an academic yourself.
Most of us have to choose the first option, but that leads to the confusion of which academic opinions to trust. Determining who is trustworthy requires either a preliminary assumption about who is generally right, or the academic chops to judge for myself. Lacking those academic chops, and realizing that a preliminary assumption that some particular brand of Protestantism had justification “generally right” was kind of right, I was confounded.
At the very point when I felt confounded, I discovered the Catholic Church. Christ did not leave us to be confounded. Nor did he require us to be academics to discover the truth. (Though some people certainly are called to an academic understanding of the faith!)
If this academic stuff matters at all, it doesn’t make sense throw your hands up in the air and just stay in whatever sect of Protestantism you happen to find yourself in. The truth is important. I think it’s clear to both Protestants and Catholics that the truth is also complicated. But the headiness of this discussion isn’t an argument for staying Protestant. It’s an illustration of why we need the Church.
Can anyone recommend a scholarly discussion of St John Chrysostom’s understanding of justification? He gets quoted a lot in discussions like this, but I suspect that his views are often misinterpreted. I’d like to understand him on his own terms.
Jason #514
“If you need God’s grace to “respond to God for Salvation” then the will is not free but bound.”
Was Christ’s natural human will free or bound?
Jason (#514),
I know a few others have already weighed in, but I’d just like to respond to this particular question of yours.
The reason why the Fathers appealed so much to the scriptures is because they, like all of us here, believed that the scriptures are divinely inspired. Yet, one reason why they did not believe in Sola Scriptura is because they realized that scripture, on its own, is not sufficient for settling controversies within the Church and maintaining unity. We are a family, and as in a nuclear family, we “children” who bicker and fight amongst each other sometimes need “parents” to step in and settle the matter. So, to give a good example from St. Augustine, dear to both of our traditions, we have this quote from his On Grace and Free Will:
St. Augustine is referring, of course, to the Pelagian controversy. Notice, first of all, that he doesn’t actually mention citation of scripture as one of the ways that the Pelagian controversy was settled, even though he himself quotes a lot of scripture when providing his personal refutations of Pelagius. The reason for this is that we never get anywhere when we all just cite scripture at each other. The Pelagians were citing scripture, too. But according to St. Augustine, the “ultimate resource” (the Latin actually says that the matter was taken before the episcopal councils “by the utmost necessity”…etiam ad concilia episcopalia novissima necessitate perventum est) is an episcopal council, not to create the doctrine, but to settle disputes about what is already being discussed from other sources.
Incidentally, just to touch on the points raised by you and others about grace and free will, you may also want to take a look at chapters 1-7 of “On Grace and Free Will,” in which St. Augustine argues both that we have free will, and that God’s grace is necessary in order that we may turn to him. In fact, he introduces the entire treatise with the premise that, while some have emphasized free will to the point of denying grace (the Pelagians), others have emphasized grace to the point of concluding that we must not have free will, and cannot figure out how to defend grace without denying free will. That, to me, seems to be the status of Reformation-minded Protestants, especially Calvinists.
Brent,
Whatever Paul’s brand of Protestantism is, if it is some form of evangelicalism, the numbers matter not. Here is why. The Lutheran and the Reformed, while smaller now in numbers represent the most sophisticated and historical versions of Protestantism. If they testify against his claims, then that is one more reason for thinking that his claims are false. It is also proof that the objection isn’t directed at Catholicism per se, but would impugn Protestantism also. So his objections miss their target.
I never argued that a certain level is a pre-requisite to dialog here, only that readers should be aware of that they are likely to encounter here. Don’t poke the bear and then get upset when he gives you a wallop.
A lack of education doesn’t of itself show someone is wrong, but that was not my claim about Hanegraaff. Rather the claim was that he is not qualified for the position he holds and he doesn’t count as some kind of scholar as Paul was painting him. Scholars don’t need people with real degrees off michrophone to help them. Nor do they need ghost writers to write their material, as Hank does. Consequently there is no comparison with Fathers of the church and Hanegraaff. This is even more so in the case of character.
Nothing Hank says is due to his own learning or education. It is due to him co-opting the work of others and passing it off as his own. There is nothing really to interact with in terms of an authority.
Perry,
You know more about Hank H. than I do so I’ll defer as to his character. I understand that you intend to “chide” these type of Christians but because I was born into their tradition I’m a little more sympathetic. In the same way you might better understand the behavior of someone put in a “fight or flight” situation like you were at 16, I understand the basic conversion of an evangelical and the layers of pastoral-rhetorical hegemony placed between the common evangelical and the Apostolic faith you were graced to know (it sounds like but by the grace of God there go you). Just like a city goer put out on a cattle ranch might make a fatal mistake because of ignorance, Paul’s poking a bear wasn’t out of his desire to tick it off, mess with it, or be irresponsible but rather because he doesn’t totally understand what he is poking. Which he admits in his last post. I’m obliged because of my personal history to gently keep him away from the bear.
Peace to you.
Through The Immaculate Conception,
Brent
First, let me say a personal thank you to Brett for his “keeping the bear at bay”.
Regarding Perry Robinson’s character assasination of Hank Hanegraaff, in which he persists, it seems that no matter how many authorities disagree with his assessment…he will not relent. I believe the well respected Elliot Miller has written, as have many others, on the unmerrited “plagarism” challenges against Hank and these have all been so thoroughly and completely dealt with that one has to wonder what’s really motivating Perry in this vein?
Anyway…Hank’s “The Apocalypse Code”, his opus…proves for a more than sufficient number of qualified persons that he is not only a scholar and authority, but a great writer as well. Clearly, the Holy Spirit has illumined him and his exegesis of Scripture in this ground breaking book.
Now, moving on and back to topic, I present the following about the kinds of things I was trying to share with you brothers that appear “odd” if not errant about CC beliefs and practices. PLEASE don’t shoot the messenger or the denigrate the author of this piece. Just read it, please…and see the merits in my comments.
One last point…stepping back and reading so much of the theological points of you Catholic believers, I can only say – again as a layperson – that the subjects and explanations are so convoluted that I have found it nearly impossible to follow, but more importantly, to gain anything spiritual from it. And, I am not sure how others like me would either…which begs the question…where has all of this gotten the CC after all these many years. My guess, from some of your responses, is that you don’t care – although you would likely never state it so coldly. You are in the in crowd of THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH…we the lost masses who likely should never have been given translations of the Bible in the first place. Does this convery a kind of snobery about the CC and C…I think it does and it did not come out of thin air.
Anyway…enough for now. Hope you recognize some of the following:
Is the Catholic Church Christian?
an Excerpt of DC170-2, “What Think Ye of Rome?”
DC170-2
Kenneth R. Samples
The full PDF can be viewed by following the link below the excerpt.
——————————————————————————–
Is the Catholic Church Christian- A Background
My research convinces me that the majority of evangelical Protestant theologians and scholars who are knowledgeable concerning Catholicism would be perplexed to hear Catholicism classified simply as a “non-Christian religion” or an “anti-Christian cult.”1 This perplexity would stem from the fact that no matter how theologically deviant Catholicism might be — even if in some respects apostate — it certainly does possess a structural or foundational orthodoxy, reflected in its adherence to the ancient ecumenical creeds (see Part One).2 As such, it should be considered at least provisionally a Christian church body. Certainly most evangelical Protestant scholars would also insist that the unfortunate unbiblical elements found in Catholicism mitigate against, or in some instances tend to undermine, aspects of that foundational orthodoxy.
Is the Catholic Church Christian- Theological Tension
Recognizing and understanding this tension in Catholic theology of the right hand giving (foundational orthodoxy) and yet the left hand taking away (affirming teaching that is inconsistent with that orthodoxy) is, in this writer’s opinion, a key to formulating a sound Protestant evaluation of Catholicism. Despite this tension, however, most evangelical scholars believe that the core orthodoxy is never entirely eclipsed. For example, though very critical of Catholicism at numerous points, evangelical theologian John Jefferson Davis of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary stated that “conservative evangelicals could affirm about 85 percent of what Catholics believe.”3
Even the Protestant Reformers4 themselves clearly acknowledged that Catholicism as a system affirmed the basic articles of the historic Christian faith. The Reformers simply charged that in both belief and practice the medieval Catholic church compromised its formal adherence to orthodoxy — specifically as related to its obscuring and undermining the gospel message.
Is the Catholic Church Christian- The Reformation
Because the Catholic church would not itself reform, the Reformation became an unavoidable though tragic necessity. However, while the Reformers called into question the Catholic church’s right to be called a “true church” (because it was failing to preach the true gospel), they did not think it had lost all the qualities of a true church. For example, they did not require the rebaptizing of those who had once been baptized as Roman Catholics.5 In a book discussing the relationship of heretical doctrine to historic Christian orthodoxy, theologian Harold O. J. Brown of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School made this insightful comment concerning Catholicism:
The strongest accusation that can be made against Roman Catholicism from this perspective is not that it is heretical in structure, but that it is heretical in effect, in that it effectively undercuts its own formal adherence to the major Christological stands of its official creeds. In other words, Reformation Protestantism acknowledges that Catholicism possesses the fundamental articles of the faith, but claims that it so overlays them with extraneous and sometimes false doctrines that the foundations are no longer accessible to the majority of Catholic believers.6
While Catholicism is foundationally or structurally an orthodox Christian church (affirming the creeds), Reformed theologian Roger Nicole is nevertheless correct in stating: “Reformation Protestants believe that much in Catholic theology tends to undermine and compromise that orthodox Christian confession — especially as it relates to the crucial issue of the gospel message.”7 In agreement with most evangelical scholars, then, the Christian Research Institute regards Roman Catholicism as neither a cult (non-Christian religious system) nor a biblically sound church, but a historically Christian church which is in desperate need of biblical reform.8
Is the Catholic Church Christian- Divisive Differences
The compromises in Catholic theology are so serious as to warrant the sixteenth century Reformation and the continued separation on the part of present-day Protestantism. At the same time, however, these compromises are not serious enough to warrant the extreme classification of Catholicism as a non-Christian religion or anti-Christian cult. Some have criticized this position for not being more definite; however, rarely does one find simple black and white answers to complex theological issues. As theologian Desmond Ford has articulately stated: “Theological truths are seldom pure, and almost never simple.” The task of correctly understanding and evaluating the long history, intricate doctrine, and diverse practices of Roman Catholicism is no simple chore.
Paul (#524),
I don’t know what you want us to get out of your excerpted quotation. Why should I or anyone else take its author, or the authors he quotes, as trustworthy and accurate? I can cite ten other authors of books sitting on my bookshelf that fundamentally disagree with Samples and his sources, and a handful of others who would disagree with my books! And when he or his sources say something is or is not “biblical” or “orthodox,” how do you know that they are correct in that judgment?
In defense of Hanegraaff (and I don’t have a dog in that fight), you repeatedly make mention of various “authorities” who affirm him, and you call him an “authority,” too. Who gave him authority? Just because someone is respected by a community of people doesn’t mean they are right. I bet I can find easily a dozen other people with strong credentials and many followers who would say his theology is all wrong. Literally hundreds of millions of people (many more than read Hanegraaff, Miller, or other names you’ve mentioned) respect the Pope, and believe he is Christ’s representative on earth until the second coming. They would say he is an authority and that his preaching is authoritative. Who determines who is right, or who is an authority? When reading the Bible, and finding that our understandings of what it says disagree, how do we know which one of us is right? Is there anyone with the authority to tell you that your interpretation of the Bible is wrong? And just because something seems odd to you, or needs explanation, can’t mean that it is automatically suspect or wrong. Jesus had to explain himself repeatedly to the apostles, and they had to explain the Gospel to others. Peter even says directly that Paul’s writings are difficult to understand.
Again, just because you read somewhere that Catholicism is unbiblical or unorthodox does not mean that it is. The Catholic Church affirms the inerrancy and truth of every verse in the Bible. The authors you’re citing have different opinions about its interpretation, but without anyone having actual authority from God to determine which interpretation is true, human opinion is not good enough to know for sure whether anything we believe is true. That is why I questioned you a few posts back when you said that something “seemed clear” to you. Something completely different seems clear to me in those same verses. There are tens of thousands of separate Protestant denominations, each formed because at some point people disagreed about how to understand something from Scripture. That seems odd and errant to me, but there’s no way around it in the Protestant way of doing things, because everybody decides for themselves who their authorities are (2 Timothy 4:1-4).
Paul #524,
You said:
“Clearly, the Holy Spirit has illumined him and his exegesis of Scripture in this ground breaking book.”
Among other things you have said, this gushing over Hannegraaf puts the Catholic and Orthodox devotion to the Mother of God to shame. :-)
I know where you are coming from when looking at Catholic and Orthodox claims. At first it feels like just arrogant and abrasive claims from folks who just can’t see the obvious. But I can tell you that I discovered that I was the arrogant and abrasive one–to thumb the nose at Christ’s promises to his church in scripture by assuming she disappeared for 1500 years. When I realized that Sola Scriptura was unscriptural and not historical, and that all the Trinitarian and Incarnational truths that I must hold to (even as a Protestant) came through that ancient church I thought was apostate, I knew that my waving of the hand would no longer quiet those voices from history (especially the Ecumenical Councils) and make my Protestantism stand on it’s own. Now, I find myself heading to Orthodoxy. So, be not offended when sometimes you get stiff challenges from Catholic or Orthodox (whether they be like a bear or like a princess)…..read, pray, kick, scream, challenge yourself and ask yourself questions about the ancient church’s claims on you, and her dogma that she has defended and protected since Christ said to her founders “I will be with you till the end of the age.”
Peace in Christ.
Paul,
It would be best that if you are not capable of understanding the arguments on this blog and that you can only call them convoluted, that you do not post a bunch of non-Catholic apologetics and expect us to sound-off in sound bites or expect a Church that has existed for 2,000 years to shake in her boots at a the first “boo” from visitors bleacher. Where have our teachings gotten the CC? Well, apparently you are unfamiliar with the fact that the CC grew by over 40 percent during the pontificate of Blessed JPII. We added over 200 million Catholics in Africa alone during that time. So, apparently somebody got something “spiritual” out of it.
In the spirit of charity, I don’t think it will benefit your stated goal of “clearing” a few things up that “seem” odd by copy/pasting a long diatribe against Catholicism. What would you have us do? What would be the appropriate response? Instead, maybe pose a single question or objection and then let us respond and then we can interact. I’ve offered you a personal email to do that as well so as not to monopolize this forum that was about Jean Calvin.
Before you copy/pasted, you said “one last point”, which confuses me Paul. As someone looking to clear the air, it seems that you are changing tenor and are sounding a bit like someone looking to debate and that you hope to convince us of your opinions. Is this your evangelistic outreach? If so, that’s fine and that is your prerogative, but understand in the words of Archbishop Fulton Sheen, “The Catholic Church is like a caged lion. You don’t need to defend it. Just open up the cage and let it out.” You are not grappling with a kitten.
Through the Immaculate Conception,
Brent
“expect a Church that has existed for 2,000 years to shake in her boots at a the first “boo” from visitors bleacher.”
You mean the church that was formed at the Council of Trent. I would recomend “Examination of the Council of Trent” by Martin Chemnitz.
Brent @516
“There is nothing logically necessary about God’s grace being irresistible. There is, however, an irresistible temptation for Lutherans of your color to resist the plain reading of the text and import your own irresistible interpretation.”
Lutheran’s do not believe in “irresistable grace”. That would be the Calvinists.
“No, I have never read the BOC. However, I wasn’t born Lutheran and in my journey to become Catholic the Lutheran case was rather not compelling.”
If you have not read it then you have not heard the Lutheran case then have you?
“Regarding sola scriptura, Pope Benedict XVI and the CCC references or appeals to scripture copiously. Neither affirm sola scriptura. So, I’m uncertain what that “proves”.”
It’s not just using scripture but how you use it. To use it rightly it must be in context. From what I have seen often Roman Catholics use verses out of context to prove an a priori assumption rather than exegeting the text. A prime example is “upon this rock”.
If you need God’s grace to “respond to God for Salvation” then the will is not free but bound.
Paul (#524):
You wrote:
But then, at the very end of your comment, we find a quotation that you endorse, which ends with the following:
So I ask: which is it? If indeed theological truths are “almost never simple,” and studying Catholicism is “no simple chore,” then why complain that it’s all so complex and demanding? You’ve either got the chops for the needed work or you don’t. If you don’t, that’s not our problem; it’s yours. If you do, then please stop complaining about hard it is.
Best,
Mike
Jason,
#528
I recommend Roots of the Reformation by Karl Adams.
Yes, Calvinists believe in t-u-l-irresistible grace-p. What was your point about the will being bound? I got temporarily confuses, I’m sorry.
Regarding the BOC (which by the way, after spending more time looking at it I realized I did in fact read some of its documents, the Large Catechism in particular. Sorry, it’s been a long time since I went through all of this).
As to the Lutheran claim in general, I’ll wait for one compelling reason why the Lutheran Church is the Church Christ re-established after “the fall of the Catholic Church around the time of the Reformation” (a few hundred years before). Jason, Trent certainly wouldn’t be Luther’s argument would it? Have you read Luther himself?
“a prime example is on this rock”
Let’s do this together. Christ changes a guys name from basically wimpy sticky (Simon) to rock (Cephas–written in koine Greek which eliminates the possibility of the big rock/little rock party line), then says on this rock I will build my Church. I’m suppose to believe that he is building his church on a confession. Is that right? Let’s look for a use of a rock image somewhere else. Christ is the “cornerstone” right? He is the “rock” that the builders rejected. So, in this same passage he gives Peter the keys of heaven, a plain as day sign to every Hebrew around him that he was making Peter his prime minister. If Peter would fill in unti his return, he would act as the Vicar “rock”. Okay, now I put the two together and presto I get solid exegesis. Oscar Cullman, an acclaimed Lutheran theologian, agrees with this analysis of the Aramaic word “kepha” and as Peter as “the rock”. What he rejects rather is not the plain reading of scripture I propose here but that there is Apostolic succession–that’s his parachute. You can pull that chord too, but don’t blame us for isogesis. It appears to me, at least prima facie-and I’m open to explanation–that you reject a priori this particular interpretation of the passage because of your a priori commitment to your BOC.
Through Mary the Mother of All Christians,
Brent
In final defense of Hank Hanegraaff (who I do not elevate to sainthood or as a necessary intercessor as the CC has done with the blessed Mother Mary) please read “Breaking the Silence” by Elliot Miller (Editor of the Christian Research Journal) at:
https://www.equip.org/breaking_the_silence
From the outset I have made it clear that I think Calvin got basically all of it wrong, and in defense of that position I have referred readers to Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell – “Why I am Not A Calvinist” and to George Bryson – “The Dark Side of Calvinism – the Calvinist Caste System” at:
https://www.calvarychapeltheology.com/resources.html
On the CC and what it teaches in certain areas, I have stated that your explanations and handling of the following subject matters have been hard to follow, not because I can not understand or that I do not have the “chops” to engage in such areas, but because when asked of Fr. Kimel as well of others of you by inference, you have either chosen not to provide anything, or just not provided the kind of concise and more clear explanations for the C position that a layperson could reasonably understand -OR – easily apply to their lives and thereby do something with: Deification of Mother Mary; Transubstantiation; Papal Authority; Sacraments; Sola Fide vs. Sola Scriptura, etc.
One should not have to read volumes of countless books, or attend a Seminary, to get the kinds of answers – and the support both pros and cons for same – I am seeking. And…reading much of what you have stated here in this forum is not helping. That’s not “on me”, that’s on you. I did not create this forum, but was directed to it upon responding to Dr. Anders conversion and his views on Calvin, which I largely share. I would go beyond what he states and have therefore defered to Bryson [for a very short read one could simply refer to his pamphlet (free on line I believe): “The Five Points of Calvinism – Weighed and Found Wanting”].
Some of you wonder where I place my loyalties, and while I continue searching, I have, for the time being, laid roots in a non-denominational ECFA Church (United by a mutual commitment to serve our Lord Jesus Christ with the guidance of the Holy Spirit and obedience to the Word of God, the Evangelical Free Church of America is an association of nearly 1,500 autonomous churches and church plants in a growing ministry that currently extends to some 75 countries of the world). This church is very well rooted in the foundational principles of our faith and is led by a solid, non-charismatic pastor. As also stated, I remain open to the CC…but I am not being convinced, as yet, that it is the actual place to be Evelyn ( I do, contrary to your point, find that I have found very trustworthy, capable scholars to be where I am – some have been mentioned in my posts here in this forum – so I am not settling for something less than the true Church, which, as I have expressed, is not a building or organization but is the living stones, who are the believers in our Savior).
When you folks continue bashing persons I consider “authorities” (and who are clearly and widely respected for same and are, by all reasonable measure reliable sources of Biblical interpreation and application), that doesn’t help either of us get anywhere. Look, if persons from history like Augstine, Polycarp and later Calvin, Luther and the Anglicans got so much wrong, as has the CC itself…seems like pointing the finger of superiority needs to stop. I am a reasonable person, learned, that certainly has the basic ingredients to understand the Word AND I believe the Lord intended this for all persons and that is why He has said to have implanted His laws onto/into each of our consciences so that we have no excuse. Again, the fundamental / foundational truths are inteligible to all, and to the extent they are made otherwise, by so-called scholars/authorities et al, one has to ignore such aberations.
While I do undertand that you may not agree with my assessment I tell you that your discussions ARE convoluted and not made easily discernable to the average person…and…in my humble opinion they need to be if any good is to come from them, otherwise, for all intents and purposes, they are quite useless. Bottom line is that you are not convincing me (I know that’s not your job and forgive me that I may just be too dumb) to embrace the CC. You can listen to this observation and consider doing something about it, or continue to attack me for pointing it out to you along with denigrating any and all “authorities” brought in support of these same kinds of views.
Paul
Jason (#529):
You wrote:
That is a non-sequitur. All that follows is that, without God’s grace, the human will is not free to choose to accept God’s grace. It does not follow that, given God’s grace, one’s will is bound to accept God’s grace. Said grace is necessary, not sufficient, for the will to choose to accept it.
Best,
Mike
Paul, (re: 532)
You wrote:
I think it would be helpful if you were talking with only one person at a time, rather than a number of persons at the same time, as in the discussion above. I’ll volunteer to be that person for now. If you want to learn what the Catholic Church teaches on the subjects you mentioned in the paragraph cited, you should first read (if you haven’t already) the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or ‘CCC’ for short. If you have already read the CCC, and you still have questions, then let’s take them one at a time, not all at once. That way, we can give proper and focused consideration to each question. But, please be patient with me, because I may not be able to answer right away, because of other responsibilities.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Paul:
In addition to Bryan’s generous offer, I note that I’ve already addressed, carefully and at length, the arguments you put to me in another thread. While posing those arguments, you observed: “it’s all about infallibility,” and in a sense I agree, which is why I approach theological debate as I do. So I’ll be happy to address any further questions or objections you have on that score. All I ask is that you do it under my guest post, not here.
Best,
Mike
Paul, given that you have mentioned my name several times, I think I need to say something. I apologize for not engaging in a lengthy internet conversation with you, but I simply am not able to do so, for various reasons. If you would like to read my past reflections on various theological topics, I refer you to my no defunct blog: https://pontifications.wordpress.com/. On the right of the page, you’ll see “Pages.” Click on a topic that interests you. You may or may not find my reflections helpful.
I am grateful that Michael and Bryan have offered to engage in further conversation with you. I’d like to offer an observation or two that may be helpful. I am going to assume that you are on a genuine quest for the truth and are not simply wanting to engage in polemical debate.
You need to approach Catholicism (or Orthodoxy) as if you were attempting to learn a new language. Catholicism may presently seem very complicated and convoluted to you at present, but it only seems this way because you are standing outside of it and are unacquainted with the vocabulary and syntax. Try not to judge Catholicism by what you think you already know about Christianity and the gospel; rather, seek to understand it on its own terms.
You have indicated that you do not desire to read books. That’s fine. Book reading is not a prerequisite. Bryan and Michael have offered to engage in conversation with you, for which I am grateful. I suggest that you address with them one topic at a time. I also suggest that you keep your conversations closely tied to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (https://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm). Forget everything you think you know about Catholicism and focus on its official teaching.
Ultimately, if you want to understand Catholicism, you will need to attend Mass. The liturgy is the primary language of the Catholic faith. The faith of the Church is not found here on the internet but in the praying community. Also, every Catholic parish offers an RCIA program for inquirers, which you may also find helpful.
May God bless you in your journey.
Michael @533
“That is a non-sequitur. All that follows is that, without God’s grace, the human will is not free to choose to accept God’s grace. It does not follow that, given God’s grace, one’s will is bound to accept God’s grace. Said grace is necessary, not sufficient, for the will to choose to accept it.”
Michael, you have no clue about Lutheran Doctrine or Martin Luther’s work “On the Bondage of the Will”. The argument is that the will is bound to sin and cannot accept God unless God does something about it. A will that “needs God’s grace” is not free because it cannot choose God “without God’s grace”. If it were a “free will” it should be able to choose God. Adam had free will before the fall. Jesus has free will because He is without Sin, the New Adam, and God in human flesh. That is not to say you do not have the ability to choose or not choose ketchup on your fries or to engage in civil righteousness, but you cannot choose God unless God does something about it.
I repeatedly see things posted that show there are many here who do not understand that Lutherans are NOT Calvinists and NOT Zwinglians and NOT Arminians I post a link to our confessions and to Martin Luther’s “On the Bondage of the Will”.
https://www.bookofconcord.org/
https://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html
Brent, @531You wrote:
“As to the Lutheran claim in general, I’ll wait for one compelling reason why the Lutheran Church is the Church Christ re-established after “the fall of the Catholic Church around the time of the Reformation” (a few hundred years before). Jason, Trent certainly wouldn’t be Luther’s argument would it? Have you read Luther himself?”
Who said anything about re-establishing anything? It isn’t that the church ever disappeared. Lutheran’s never left Rome, Rome left us. “Trent certainly wouldn’t be Luther’s argument would it?” Not sure what you meant by that. “Have you read Luther himself?”” Yep, some of the best theology I have ever read.
“a prime example is on this rock”
Let’s do this together. Christ changes a guys name from basically wimpy sticky (Simon) to rock (Cephas–written in koine Greek which eliminates the possibility of the big rock/little rock party line), then says on this rock I will build my Church. I’m suppose to believe that he is building his church on a confession. Is that right? Let’s look for a use of a rock image somewhere else. Christ is the “cornerstone” right? He is the “rock” that the builders rejected. So, in this same passage he gives Peter the keys of heaven, a plain as day sign to every Hebrew around him that he was making Peter his prime minister. If Peter would fill in unti his return, he would act as the Vicar “rock”. Okay, now I put the two together and presto I get solid exegesis. Oscar Cullman, an acclaimed Lutheran theologian, agrees with this analysis of the Aramaic word “kepha” and as Peter as “the rock”. What he rejects rather is not the plain reading of scripture I propose here but that there is Apostolic succession–that’s his parachute. You can pull that chord too, but don’t blame us for isogesis. It appears to me, at least prima facie-and I’m open to explanation–that you reject a priori this particular interpretation of the passage because of your a priori commitment to your BOC.
The Greek grammar indicates that “Rock” is Peter’s confession. At which you will reply “They were speaking Aramaic” which is irrelevant because the Greek is clear. It even comes through in the English if you look hard at the context. Also, Jesus gives the keys to all his disciples in Matthew 18.
I would also recomend Chemnitz 4 volume work “Examination of the Council of Trent”
https://carm.org/is-peter-the-rock
https://carm.org/peter-supreme-among-apostles
Paul (re:#532),
Brother, I can identify with some of the thoughts that you have voiced here. Until last year, I was a Protestant, of several years, who had left the Catholic Church, convinced that the Church was wrong on many issues. Over the years, I have benefited much from Hank Hanegraaff and CRI, so I am not about to “bash” them here. I have benefited from many, many Protestant authors. I still continue to enjoy the helpful work of Christian apologists such as Ravi Zacharias.
Last year, I came to the decision to return to the Catholic Church. I didn’t do so because Catholicism was “familiar” to me, because I had been away from the Church for so many years that it really *wasn’t* familiar anymore. In many ways, I still felt at home in the world, and the language (terminology) of conservative Protestantism.
I returned to the Catholic Church because, through study, reflection, and prayer, I experienced a paradigm shift in my thinking– a shift that I am now convinced was due to the leading of God, because I had actually been quite an anti-Catholic Protestant.
Part of this change in my thinking was through coming to see a great many problems inherent in the “Sola Scriptura” (i.e. the Bible as the ultimate, and only, infallible authority for Christians) way of thinking embraced by Protestants, and which I had embraced, for many years, as a Protestant. There is an article on this website about Sola Scriptura, and the issue of interpretive authority, which you may find helpful: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/11/solo-scriptura-sola-scriptura-and-the-question-of-interpretive-authority/
One of the turning points for me, in terms of the shift in my thinking, came when I began reading about church history, including writings of the early church, and finding that Christians, from the early years of Christianity (2nd century and on), did not seem to embrace the “Sola Scriptura” way of thinking which I held dear as a Protestant. This was disturbing to me, but it didn’t cause me to quickly abandon the “Sola Scriptura” model, because I still thought that it was fundamentally right.
However, as I read more and more from the early years of the church, I saw that these early Christians simply didn’t think the way that I did, as a Protestant, about “Sola Scriptura” and about many things. I began to wonder, could it be possible that I have been wrong, given that so many early Christians disagree with my understanding of the Scriptures on so many things?
Up to this point, I had been judging the teaching of the Catholic Church (and the teachings of anyone, anywhere), according to my interpretation of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone, *as* my only infallible authority. Of course, this didn’t mean that I would read other Christians writings, outside of the Scriptures themselves, but I *judged* all of those other writings according to my interpretation of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone– Sola Scriptura.
However, I began to see that, even when it came to interpreting the Scriptures *themselves*, the early Christians’ conclusions on what certain Scriptures meant were quite different from my interpretations– on justification, eternal security, baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and church authority, to name certain (important) issues.
I compared the early Christian interpretations of the Scriptures with my interpretations. I saw that, at least with certain issues, very good arguments could be made on both interpretive “sides”– the side of the early Christians, and my side, as a Protestant. On other issues, I saw that my interpretations of Scripture didn’t stand up well at all to the interpretations of the early Christians (2nd century and on).
At this point, I began to ask myself, basically, “Given what I have been reading, and the major differences that I have been finding, between my Protestant understandings of Scripture, on many issues, and the understanding of the early Christians– could it be that they are right, and I am wrong, especially since they lived so much closer to Jesus and the apostles than I do?”
Again, I was seeing differences between my readings of Scripture, and the reading of the early Christians, and I was also seeing the difference that I took Scripture alone to be my only infallible authority– and the early Christians did not. They had a very passionate love and respect for the Scriptures, as the *written* word of God, but they also did not understand the “word of God” to exist *only* in the written documents of the Scriptures. Were they all heretics… or was I wrong in my Protestant commitment to Sola Scriptura?
As I said above, last year, I reached the decision to return to the Catholic Church. Before I ever returned though, I had to be willing to at least *consider* that my Protestant, Sola Scriptura paradigm was wrong– and that, maybe, I should attempt to understand, and “try on” the Catholic paradigm (which is, obviously, not Sola Scriptura).
This was *very* hard for me, because I had heard, and embraced, for many years, the idea that the Bible is the only infallible authority of faith and practice for Christians. However, I was also realizing that this Sola Scriptura paradigm was simply not the understanding of the early, apostolic-era (and beyond) Christians.
So, I decided that to be fair and honest, I needed to take off my “Sola Scriptura” glasses and attempt to understand the Catholic paradigm on its own terms, not from my Protestant terms of “If I can’t find it, clearly and explicitly, in the Bible, I won’t accept it.” My reasoning was that if so many early Christians did not think in this “Sola Scriptura” way, perhaps I should at least consider trying on their paradigm, rather than simply sticking to mine?
I highly recommend the article on Sola Scriptura here, which I linked to, above, in this comment. God bless you in your journey and your search, my brother in Christ.
A correction– in my #537 comment, I *meant* to write, “Of course, this didn’t mean that I *would not* read other Christians writings, outside of the Scriptures themselves, but I *judged* all of those other writings according to my interpretation of the Scriptures, and the Scriptures alone– Sola Scriptura.”
As a Protestant, I read the Scriptures, and other Christian writings, and I certainly took some of these other writings *into account*, when I interpreted the Scriptures. However, as a Protestant, I still held firmly to the Sola Scriptura concept of the “the Bible, alone, as the only *infallible* authority, by which to judge all other writings, Christian and non-Christian.”
I held to this concept for almost all of my time as a Protestant– even, for some time, during the last year, as I re-investigated the claims of the Catholic Church. As I describe above though, at a certain point, I began to see serious problems with the Sola Scriptura model itself. I didn’t quickly abandon it– not at all. However, both Scripture itself and the testimony of the early Christians ultimately convinced that I needed to at least *try* another paradigm (the Catholic one). As I did so, I began to see, more and more, the serious problems with Sola Scriptura– so much so, that finally, I was actually *compelled* to abandon it. I saw that the Catholic paradigm had all of the strengths of Protestantism without its inherent (and, as far as I can tell, irresolvable) problems.
Thank you Christopher for sharing your journey, and the others who have attempted to constructively responded most recently; namely, Fr. Alvin Kimel, Michael Liccione and Bryan Cross.
What I have been asking for via this forum from the Catholic side is exactly what I provide herein below from the “Protestant” side. None have provided it, nor has a single reference or web link been recommended that offers such a concise summary overview of the key issues.
So, I offer the following researched and quoted material in hopes of bringing focus and clarity to these matters…and then, if we must, could you please take the single subject to focus upon from this “list” of the non-Biblical veneration (worship) of the Blessed Mother Mary, where she is literally set above Christ in at least pictorial representations throughout the RCC and Greek Orthodox and other C expressions, if not also as THE MEDIATOR and necessary INTERCESSOR of our faith and sanctification. Christ did not teach or even remotely imply this on His first coming, nor was there any such inkling of same by any of the Apostles for Mary or anyone else (at least not to the extreme and extra-Biblical sense as the CC does). This is at the very door of every CC – the entry into their Mass and central to their “traditions” and that makes little sense to non-C…so it seems a reasonable and most necessary place to begin.
Recommended Resource: Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences by Norm Geisler.
Paul, (re: #541)
Thanks for your note. To discuss these questions carefully and sincerely, and to avoid merely entering into debate, we have to examine them one at a time. Attempting to treat them all at the same time, would be a temptation to superficiality and mere crowd-pleasing — we have no intention of entering into that sort of activity here at CTC. So, let’s consider together only your first question, about Mary.
Jesus is God eternal, infinite, uncreated, not contingent; Mary, by contrast, is a creature, contingent, and finite. There is an infinite ‘distance’ between Jesus and Mary in that respect, since Jesus is the uncreated God, and Mary is a creature made in the image of God, and depending every second on God for her existence, and on her Son for her salvation. But, there is another sense, quite familiar to us, and fully compatible with what I have just said, in which Jesus is subordinate to His mother, and that is the relation of son to mother, and is the basis for the duty prescribed in the fourth commandment, namely for children to honor their father and mother, which is an obligation following from justice, because children acquire their existence, nurture, and education, from their parents. Jesus, as truly man, took His flesh and blood from Mary His mother, and was nourished in the womb and during His childhood by Mary, and was taught by His mother, how to speak, how to dress Himself, how to obey, how to live. Jesus always perfectly honored His mother, in obedience to the Fourth Commandment, in fulfillment of justice. From the moment Mary consented to the message from the angel Gabriel, and Jesus was conceived in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit, Jesus was and always will be subordinate to her in that respect, that is, as son to mother, even while, at the same time, being her Creator and Savior, and upholding all things by the word of His power. So, if you have seen pictorial representations in which Mary is “set above” Christ, they usually are depicting Mary holding the Christ child, and are therefore depicting this true relation of mother to son, which exalts the greatness of Christ’s love, by showing how great is His humility, in that He would humble Himself to be subject to a woman, as His mother. Prof. Feingold, a Catholic theologian who teaches for the Institute of Pastoral Theology of Ave Maria University has given a helpful lecture on the divine maternity here:
Lawrence Feingold – “Mary’s Spiritual Maternity and Mediation”
To understand Mary’s role in our salvation, it is essential first to understand her role in Christ’s objective salvific work, before attempting to understand her role in Christ’s subjective salvific work. I recommend beginning by studying how Mary is prefigured in the Old Testament, which we discussed in “Mary in the Old Testament,” and the lectures which are available there. Then read about Mary’s role in Christ’s objective work of redemption in my post titled “Mary as Co-Redemptrix.”
Then, before investigating Mary’s role in Christ’s subjective work of redemption, first be sure you understand the Catholic doctrine of “the communion of the saints.” For that I recommend reading the Catholic Encyclopedia article on “The Communion of the Saints,” and the section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the “communion of saints,” (CCC 946-962). You may also want to listen to what David Anders says at this post “Scripture on the Theology of Relics and the Intercession of the Saints,” and see my post titled “Heroes of the New Covenant,” and paragraph 3 in “Indulgences, the Treasury of Merit and the Communion of Saints.”
Finally, regarding Mary’s role in Christ’s subjective redemption of the world, listen to the following lecture by Prof. Feingold, titled “Mary’s Spiritual Maternity and Mediation.”
If after that, you still have questions regarding the Catholic teaching concerning Mary, might I ask you to direct them to the combox of the “Mary as Co-Redemptrix” post, because this present thread is intended to be for the purpose of discussing David’s article on John Calvin And when we have answered your questions on this subject of the Catholic understanding of Mary, then we can move to the next question in your set of questions in your comment just above.
(Addendum: The audio recordings of all of Professor Feingold’s lectures on Mary, as well as that of the question and answer session after each lecture, are available here.)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Paul (#539):
In my view, it’s rarely useful to draw up a laundry list of differences between “Protestants” and Catholics for purposes of discussing them. For one thing, the differences among churches and people who regard themselves as Protestant are themselves great enough to discredit most generalizations about what “Protestants” believe. The only thing that Protestants as such seem to agree on, and that are not also things the Catholic Church would affirm, is that the claims of the Catholic Church for her own authority are false. That’s why I prefer to focus Catholic-Protestant dialogue on that issue.
Now one cannot make headway on that issue if one tries to argue that some Catholic doctrines, such as the ones you list, are false. For if the claims of the Catholic Church for her own authority are true, then those doctrines are true; so it would just beg the question to say that, since those doctrines are false, therefore the claims of the Catholic Church for her own authority are false. One must first focus discussion on the question what is needed to assess the Catholic Church’s claims for herself without begging the question. And that’s exactly what my guest post, to which I linked you, does.
But you have not yet commented on that post. Am I to infer that you’d rather just discuss various doctrines one at a time, without first addressing the matter as I’ve suggested? If so, then why should I see that as anything more than a begging of the real question? If not, then why haven’t you addressed the matter I consider fundamental?
Best,
Mike
Paul,
I edited your comment (#539) because somehow the Geisler quote appeared 3 times. I also put it in blockquotes to make it easier to identify as an extended quote. If you would like to know how to do this for further posts, you can find instructions under About > Comment Formatting.
As for the substance of your extended quote, extended quotes that try to compress important issues into relatively small sound bytes do not bring “focus and clarity” to the topic. In fact, they do more to obscure things because they are more prone to misrepresentations and failing to account for important nuance. Your extended quote from Norman Geisler is an example of this. Geisler shows in his quote that he does not understand Roman Catholic teaching, and not only in the details, but in matters about which he, as a scholar and someone claiming the mantle of teacher (James 3:1), really should know better. When I first decided that I was going to give Catholicism a chance, it didn’t take me very long to find that there existed real, fair answers to the kinds of questions Protestants often ask about Catholic teaching, that can be easily understood without so wrongly misrepresenting what Catholics actually believe. Geisler, on the other hand, seems to be making the Protestant side look as “good” as possible and the Catholic side look as “bad” as possible. Not once does he quote from the Catechism. He finishes off each little “gotcha” against Catholics with scriptural quotations for Protestant positions as if Catholics don’t support their position with scripture, effectively skirting around the issue that where we really differ is on whether God left us a visible authority on earth to help us distinguish between correct and incorrect interpretations of scritpure. He throws out unexplained little tidbits like that we rely on “non-canonical books” to establish the doctrine of Purgatory when the status of the scriptural canon is itself one of the most important differences between us, making it seem like we’re just supposed to take the novel, 66-book Protestant canon as given, which only seems to work because Protestants generally (in my experience, at least) just accept the bible as it’s handed to them by their friend or pastor without realizing that the table of contents was decided on by a group of (fallible?!) men at some point in history. He makes similar, easily avoidable errors with pretty much every item on that list. He’s very much preaching to the choir, and I don’t see how that selection could serve to do anything more than further solidify deeply ingrained but ignorant (ignorant simply in the sense of “not knowing”) prejudices. Therefore, I do hope you will take advantage of the invitation offered by others to “sit down” with us and go through these matters carefully and slowly, one at a time.
@Michael Liccione:
I absolutely agree with Michael. As a God?-what-is-God?-ist until age 27, a Protestant (Reformed and Calvinist for most of that time) until about age 51, and a Catholic since then (now age 68), I think I have seen things from different points of view. I can boil down the differences between Catholics and Protestants to these three:
1) Authority.
2) Authority.
3) Authority.
In becoming a Catholic, I found that the root question is how we know God’s Mind. As a Protestant, I thought it came down to Scripture. Then I discovered that I had no basis for Scripture as the Word of God that would not apply as well to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon; and I had no better basis for knowing what Scripture taught than the opinion – educated or not – of this man or that (one of the men being me).
Either God has provided a trustworthy authority – one which, when push comes to shove, we can rely on – or else we are each one thrown on his own reason and experience.
It is true – the tu quoque response – that we must use our own reason and experience to discern that authority. I have a great deal of sympathy for Paul and for all those to whom it has not yet occurred that the Catholic Church may just be exactly what it says – the Body of Christ and the Teacher provided for all who will listen – because it is true that at some point you must make the act of will that, in fact, I made on 27 July, 1994, in ‘plane from Wellington to Auckland. I prayed, “Lord, I will never dot every ‘i’ or cross every ‘t’, but I know enough now that I think if I knew I was going to die tonight, I would want to see a priest. If You don’t stop me, I am going to become a Catholic.”
But that decision was not fundamentally different from my decision on 27 December, 1969, that this Jesus – about Whom I had heard that night for the first time – I was going to try to follow and obey.
Both cases were examples of Newman’s “convergent probabilities.” All our decisions in life above the level of the mathematical or logical, in the strict sense, are such – and even mathematical conclusions rest on postulates that must be taken that way.
jj
@545
“For one thing, the differences among churches and people who regard
themselves as Protestant are themselves great enough to discredit most
generalizations about what “Protestants” believe. ”
Hogwash, I have encounter just as great a diversity among Roman Catholics and the Pew Survey’s show the same. Furthermore, one ought not label all “protestants” as heirs of the Reformation. Most American evangelicals have far more in common with Roman Catholics than they do the Lutheran or Reformed Confessions. This habit of Roman Catholics lumping all protestants together is as fallacious as my fellow Lutherans lumping Calvinists and Arminians together.
“Then I discovered that I had no basis for Scripture as the Word of God that would not apply as well to the Qur’an or the Book of Mormon; and I had no better basis for knowing what Scripture taught than the opinion – educated or not – of this man or that (one of the men being me).”
So what Jesus said about Scripture and the fact that He proved his authority with miracles and raising from the dead carries only as much weight as personal oppinion?
“Either God has provided a trustworthy authority – one which, when push comes to shove, we can rely on – or else we are each one thrown on his own reason and experience.”
So God has made is word unintelligable and we come to know God through our own efforts? This is opposite of what Jesus said.
That is an extremely low view of Scripture and God.
“But that decision was not fundamentally different from my decision on 27 December, 1969, that this Jesus – about Whom I had heard that night for the first time – I was going to try to follow and obey.”
That means you were not a Protestant but a Pelagian.
In an attempt to civily respond to and cooperate with the requests of Bryan Cross, Michael Liccione and David Pell, et al…I have placed the continuation of this discussion over onto the following page where I post a response, directly to Byran and indirectly to others herein, focusing in on 1 topic as requested, primarily; namely, addressing the issue of Mariology and non-C concerns with it, at:
https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/mary-as-co-redemptrix/comment-page-1/#comment-16364
Since Michael Liccione as requested that we really first focus on the truth or lack thereof about the claims of the Catholic Church for her own authority…I have also attempted a response that encompases that matter as well. If he suggests that be placed elsewhere then I am happy to do that with the right link, but I still think and find that what I have posted at Mary As Co-Redemptrix is also rightly placed and integral to that discussion as well, as both subjects are very directly related and co-linked.
Grace to you and peace in Him,
Paul
Jason,
You write:
Can you provide any examples of Church Fathers who correlated “rock” with “Peter’s confession” based on Greek grammar?
The only Church Father I’m aware of who correlated “rock” with “Peter’s confession” was St. Augustine, but (a)he was notoriously ignorant of Greek, (b) he had previously correlated “rock” with “Peter” and (c) in his Retractions he left it up to the reader to decide which made the better sense, so he was hardly didactic on the subject.
You also write:
Can you explain your assertion that “most American evangelicals have far more in common with Roman Catholics than they do with Lutheran or Reformed Confessions”? This seems counterintuitive in light of the Evangelical acceptance of the Reformation “solas” and their rejection of either apostolic succession or anything but a symbolic understanding of the Eucharist.
Also, on what basis do you claim that Evangelicals are not “heirs of the Reformation” inasmuch as the radical tradition of the Anabaptists originated in the Reformation and saw itself as part of the same movement?
In addition Jason, the petra/petros distinction does not exist in the koine greek in which it was originally written (think low-brow english where there isn’t as much distinction; the words exist without a meaningful difference).
In the Greek as in other engendered languages, words are masculine or feminine. Even if there is a distinction, the greek petros is masculine and would be used since it was the first time it was being used for a male person’s name. However, to use the same verb over again would have had little effect, so the use of petros (huge rock) could demonstrate that Peter is even more important (Jesus, is saying, “just in case you missed it the first time, what I’m doing here is a big deal”; think about the imagery of Abram to Abraham as the last time God founded a group of people with a name change). This is a common theme in the teachings of Christ as well. He will teach one thing one way, and then “raise the stakes” by changing the imagery, language, or verb, (e.g., eat (esthio) my flesh, chew (trogo) my flesh; Peter do you agape/phileo me?) even doing it in back-to-back sentences. Take John 6, he esthio my flesh, and then in the next sentence he says if you don’t trogo my flesh. Trogo raises the stakes because this word conjures no possible metaphoric/symbolic imagery. Interestingly enough the word has an etymological relationship with the word for “wound” and “path” which adds another layer of interest as we think about it as the Eucharistic Christ (The Way) and as a sharing in the Paschal wounds.
#54: “Hogwash, I have encounter just as great a diversity among Roman Catholics and the Pew Survey’s show the same. Furthermore, one ought not label all “protestants” as heirs of the Reformation. Most American evangelicals have far more in common with Roman Catholics than they do the Lutheran or Reformed Confessions. This habit of Roman Catholics lumping all protestants together is as fallacious as my fellow Lutherans lumping Calvinists and Arminians together.”
Actually, this is not hogwash at all. The doctrinal diversity within Protestantism is wide and manifest, and it’s silly to deny it. Nor is the theological diversity found within the Catholic Church comparable: it cannot be comparable because Catholic discourse is normed by dogmatic definitions and authoritative magisterial teaching in a way that no Protestant community is or can be.
I well understand why confessional Lutherans do not want to be grouped in with the rest of Protestantism. It’s important in dialogues like this to identify and respect the theological distinctives of each party. But the simple fact remains that in common usage “Protestantism” comprehends Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Baptists, Mennonites, and every evangelical non-denominational church on the face of the planet. It really doesn’t matter who the true heirs of the Reformation. The Anabaptists and “enthusiasts” were as much part of the Reformation as Luther, Zwingli, and Cranmer.
Back to our regularly scheduled program … :)
Brent and Jason,
As for linguistic issues concerning Matthew 16:18, I wrote a post on the subject some time ago. You can find it at: The Two “Rocks” of Matthew 16:18 in the Syriac Peshitta.
The Syriac New Testament preserves the discussion between Jesus and Peter as it would have taken place in the language they were speaking. Aside from that, there is internal evidence in both the Syriac and Greek versions of the New Testament that it was just as common for Peter to be referred to by other Christians in his Aramaic name, Cephas, as it was for him to be called Petros.
The other uses of petra adduced in Jason’s link do not produce a compelling argument because the Greek grammar actually demands that the different forms of the word be used when Peter is renamed. It is one thing to predicate the rock of someone to make a point (“Jesus is the rock (petra)”). It would be something entirely different to essentially give Simon a woman’s name permanently.
This is, of course, not even to get into the greater significance of the name-change scenario (Peter as the new Abraham/Israel, etc.). However, I would like to ask that if we continue this discussion, we do so on the thread devoted to the subject, so as not to take this thread on John Calvin off topic.
David,
Sorry David, I didn’t mean to respond to Jason and thereby get the thread off topic. I did not know that this apparently is a long-running issue with Jason and that your article was meant to address it. I’ve read your article and see no reason to make any further comment.
To get things back on topic:
Calvin made me Catholic because when I re-read the Institutes he came across as pompous, immature, and sacrilegious. This wasn’t just an ad hominem “way out” of admitting to his arguments, but rather a characterization of the tone of his arguments. It reminded me of reading a note from a teenager criticizing his parents. How could “The Church” be re-built upon the rantings of a disgruntled youth? They weren’t. I’m Catholic.
Through the Immaculate Conception
@Brent:
Calvin made me Catholic by convincing me of the reality of Church authority. With that, Ronald Knox made me Catholic by pointing me to the implications of Church authority. Calvin was right, that I must submit to the Church. The problem was that the Church didn’t mean my little Reformed congregation and its elders. It meant the Church that Jesus had founded and that was still there and still One.
jj
“Calvin made me Catholic because when I re-read the Institutes he came across as pompous, immature, and sacrilegious.”
What does any of that have to do with Calvin’s argument?
As for “Rock” just because it does not come through clearly in Syriac does not mean anything. Why doesn’t the Greek text say it the way you interpret the Syriac? Your arguments sound like KJV onlyism. Of course KJV onlyism is the same argument as Vulgate onlyism. Funny how false teaching gets recylced.
“In addition Jason, the petra/petros distinction does not exist in the koine greek in which it was originally written (think low-brow english where there isn’t as much distinction; the words exist without a meaningful difference).”
If it doesn’t exist in the Koine Greek text then why is it in the Koine Greek text since that is the language of the Greek NT?
Jason,
I’ll only respond to the Calvin comment due to the forum. I’ll let you duke it out with the other language scholars at the other post. Jason, as I said, the tone of the arguments were pompous, immature, and sacrilegious. If this doesn’t mean anything to you, or rather that is an appealing method of argument, fine. Obviously, I didn’t convert to Catholicism as a direct effect of reading the Institutes. The pernicious doctrine of cessation was enough for me to discredit him. I put Jean Calvin in the category of Hume, as a young, arrogant, jerk who didn’t know the implications of what he was writing but wrote it because he had the liesure to do so. If it wasn’t for Farel, Calvin would have been a real coward too.
Take care
Jason, you said:
“What does any of that have to do with Calvin’s argument?”
And earlier you restated:
“If you need God’s grace to “respond to God for Salvation” then the will is not free but bound.”
If this is Calvin’s argument concerning the will, and you agree with this argument, then John Calvin should make you either Catholic or Orthodox. Here’s why….
Question: Did Christ have a natural human will?
If No, see the 6th Ecumenical Council
If Yes was it free or bound?
Canadian, thanks for making it easy for me. No, actually it is Luther’s argument. Actually, as a Confessional Lutheran I am Orthodox by definition. Yes Christ had a free human will BECAUSE HE HAD NO SIN! The only humans who ever had free will are Adam and Eve who lost it in the Fall, and Jesus Christ. Please note that Jesus was also fully God in Human flesh.
Brent ,”Jason, as I said, the tone of the arguments were pompous, immature, and sacrilegious.” I am merely pointing that your argument is a falacy. A couple actually, Ad Hominem (spelling?) attack and fallacy of relevance. Probably some others too. None of these things you list saying anything about Calvin’s doctrine, only about what you “feel” or think about him.
Jason,
You will know them by their fruit. I said the tone of the arguments, not Calvin as a person. In theology, tone is important. Maybe you’ve read more philosophy, so think Hume vs. Kant. BIG DIFFERENCE in the way the arguments role off the tongue. Nevertheless, Calvin had a nominal role in my conversion since my entire undergraduate theology curriculum was spent working under a Calvin scholar. Maybe I’m just exhausted with him.
But, okay let’s try this again to get Jason’s approval:
Calvin made me Catholic because he held to the pernicious doctrine of cessation, which ascribes to God no more than a deistic porch view post the apostolic era, whereby he is relegated to simply applaud doctrinal purity. Further, this doctrine was even more important to the Protestant’s in general as way to abnegate the miracles wrought by the counter-reformers (St. Francis de Sales) and the miracles that occurred between the 3rd and 16th centuries.
Also Jason, I find your comment above “Please note…God in Human flesh” to fall short of a proper understanding of the hypostatic union. Perhaps this is where the free/bound will error creeps into your theology. I’ll defer to your explanation.
Peace
Jason #557
But Christ has free human will not because he has no sin, but He has it because it was a property of the nature he assumed. He received it from Mary just like every aspect of his humanity. The humanity he assumed was fallen, but not sinful. We use our free will in a personal way that inclines to sin. Jesus uses his free human will in a divine way because he is a divine person. You deny free will because you think sin is natural rather than personal. This is not Orthodox. Denying freedom to our natural will is monothelitism because we are consubstantial with Christ according to his humanity. You end up having the divine will replace or overwhelm the human will in salvation. None of this means we are not slaves to sin as the scripture says, but if you take free will from us you take it from Christ as well.
It is interesting that John Calvin made Dr. Anders a Catholic (and apparently others here as well), while what Calvin’s teachings did to me was to question every aspect of his systematic theology (“TULIP”) only to find that it runs so contrary to the truths of Scripture that the only choice was to reject it ENTIRELY (on every one of its points). So, I, not at this time being a Catholic (but coming as he did from a Protestant/Anglican background), would rephrase Dr. Anders article (and the journey it represents): “How John Calvin, Despite His Systematic Theology, Made Me A More Faithful Believer”.
That is why I originally suggested herein (Post #449) that you consider as primary the books by George Bryson, and secondarily those by Walls and Dongell:
I. George Bryson – “The Darkside of Calvinism – the Calvinist Caste System” which one can obtain direct from the author’s site at: https://www.calvarychapeltheology.com/resources.html
George is a pastor/teacher of over 40 years and leads an outreach church movement in Russia. George does not hold to Arminian beliefs.
II. Jerry L. Walls and Joseph R. Dongell – “Why I am Not A Calvinist”
Calvinsit systematic theology, whether of the Hyper or Hypo strain, flies in the face of John 3:16…and as these persons make clear…so disfigures the truth of Scripture that truth is seriously compromised.
Bryson writes: “…Scripture teaches that God sovereignty ordained that faith in Christ be a real condition for salvation and not (as Calvinists teach) a mere consequence of election (see Acts 16:31). From the human side of the salvation issue, I believe that it is faith alone in Christ that results in the salvation of the lost (Eph. 2:8-9). In effect, Calvinists have confused the biblical truth that God requires a lost person to believe in Jesus Christ (as a CONDITION of salvation) in order for him or her to be saved by God, with the unbiblical error that a person can or does make a contribution to his or her salvation and thereby becomes a cosavior with God…Just because the candidate for salvation has some presalvation responsibility (i.e., to believe in Jesus Christ), does not make him or her even partially a Savior. How does God accomplish salvation? The answer is that He has chosen, in accordance with His own sovereign will, to save by grace through faith. If faith is the means to receive the gift of eternal life and salvation, it should not be confused with that gift as it is in Calvinism.”
The above seems to make the same case that is made in the good news of the Gospel – a simple message that can and is both easily communicated and understandable by the masses. Afterall…believers are often referred to in Scripture as “lost sheep”…and sheep, as is well known…are very dumb and certainly would never be thought capable of making complex theological systems the likes of such notables as the CC, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, et al.
I am curious if any of you have taken up the challenge to read these writings (although, since those of you who are C consider any other believers writings – outside The CC Fathers and “CC Traditions” – anathema and therefore of no use and therefore also non-authoritative), since what Bryson’s book discusses answers how all points of Calvin, and those 1.5 to 3 points often shared by Protestants or Reformed, are seriously in error. Seeing these errors might help Catholics, Protestants and others better undersetand the truth of Scripture and the teachings of the faithful (i.e. the Church Universal = the body of Believers, to include Jews & Gentiles, C and P, etc.) since.
Paul
Dear Paul,
We both don’t agree with Calvin. Case closed. Amen. Pass the salad.
We both agree that there are many “easy” gospels. For instance, an easy gospel to understand would be, “say these magic words and you go to heaven”. Dumb sheep would follow that.
However, lost sheep doesn’t equal dumb sheep, they are just lost. They are lost because they don’t have a shepherd. (the shepherd’s job is to keep them from getting lost). Jesus says we should be gentle as lambs, but wise as a serpent (Matt 10:16). Eph 4:13 says the Church should obtain to “manhood” in the “stature of the fullness of Christ”; not act like a child wanting children’s stories. As Bryan has pointed out, the complexity of the Church’s theology is related to 2,000 years of passing down the deposit of faith and defending it against various philosophies and heresies. Homoousian anybody? The fact that you assume the Trinity, original Sin, the hypostatic union, et. al evidences that your church, somewhere back when nursed at the breast of Mother Church. However, like the son who wanted his inheritance now, you spit out the good food (hind milk) and chased after the “kingdom now” because all you could take is foremilk (1 Cor 3:2) because you were still worldly (v.3). Mother Church dishes up solid food for “the mature who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil” (Heb 5:14). The only way for you to receive this is to humbly come back home to Mother Church, ask if you can be a servant, and you will be surprised to find the feast Christ’s Church has waiting.
Actually Paul, we take very serious non-Catholic writers. Some of us have spent most of our lives before becoming Catholic pouring over tens of thousands of pages of non-Catholic writers. The old “cradle Catholic” argument won’t work here. Uh, uh Kermit de Bart who? Did you say Ef Ef Bruce? No, really, I think we can agree that your sources rightfully point out that Calvin is wrong. But, it doesn’t prove they are right. Desert please?
Peace to you on your journey.
Brent, you conclude it may not “prove that they are right”. I assume you mean not in all things, and maybe so, but at least we have made some headway (though without theological specifics) in that we now concur that Calvin got it wrong (I believe they make a compelling case that he got it ALL wrong), and Bryson gets it right…but you have not told me if the CC agrees that Calvin got it fully wrong or are their parts, like the Lutherans, the CC holds onto and think Calvin was correct about?
Anyway, you have to some degree contradicted yourselves by at long last admitting that at least some of these writers points do reflect points that you share – ergo – at least these points are then authoritative and from fellow believer-authorities who, although not-C, reflect the teachings of our Lord – and apparently also the CC – AND the “Traditions” (which are nothing other than truths passed down over history by one or more brothers to others) that are in full accord with the earliest of believers, the Apostles, the Fathers, etc., ALL who equal fellow Believers in Jesus Christ. Amen!
I have continued to posit a different interpretation and conclusion about what is or what makes up our Lord’s Church, not willing to concede that mantle to the CC , or as you name it/her – “Mother Church.” I believe Scripture makes it clear that “THE CHURCH” is that body of Belivers who fit the description of Galatians 3:26-32 (New King James Version) — Sons and Heirs:
26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
You keep asserting (Bryan) that the CC is THE CHURCH, as if that even exists as you would or do define it. There is nothing that gives you the right or basis to claim this, or to distort – as many non-C believe – what our Lord taught and implied by His Bride or His Church. Granted, to the extent that the CC has both preserved and passed on the true faith, and more importantly embodied same in its practices (which we all know it has not done so well many times throughout history), then to that extent can it claim, in a limited sense only, to be a part of the Body of Christ – ergo – His Church of faithful (B)elievers…but NOT THE CHURCH or “MOTHER CHURCH.”
And who and what are true and faithful Believers? Scripture tells us that they are those who teach the truth (Good News), like the earliest believers (who did not all become “Apostles” though all were saints), the Apostles, etc. Believers are defined in Scripture as those who are: “good men, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith” (Acts 11:24), “lambs among wolves” (Acts 10:3), “…examples to the believers in word, in conduct, in love, in faith, in purity” (1 Tim 4:12), those “who believes and is/are baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16), “who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have” (Acts 10:47), who are to “Go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt 28:19) – etc.
So, we know what Believers are like from these and so many other descriptions and examples in the Bible…now who is to guide us in His absence until His 2nd Coming? Is it the CC, the Mother Church? NO. Is it any other institution or denomination? NO. Is it practicing Mariology or the Rosary? NO. Is it Baptism or Communion? NO. Is it works? NO. Is it observance of the CC Sacraments? NO. Is it good behavior and righteous acts? NO. Does it have anything to do with what mankind does or does not do? NO. Who and what is it then? Scripture tells us quite clearly, and believers of our Christian faith/tradition do also, and it is found in the completed work of Jesus Christ on the Cross of Calvary. According to Scripture, who are we to follow until the Good Shephard’s 2nd Coming? The Answer:
16 “If you love Me, keep[d] My commandments. 16 And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. 18 I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you.
It is His Holy Spirit – HE is our guide, comforter, helper, the Spirit of Truth, who guides us into deeper truth while we serve our fellow saints (Believers) and share the Good News with others. I therefore see no justification for the cliams of the CC to its “authority” or its so-called right or status to call Anathema anyone or anything. In the same way I see no justification for the CC to claim itself THE CHURCH when The Church has been clearly marked out and defined by our Lord as that body of true and faithful Believers. Period! Amen!
Paul,
I think this forum will not be productive for the dialogue you would like. You are clearly looking to evangelize Catholics and not discuss reasonably claims the Church makes. If you are not looking to evangelize us, you do not take the claims of your teachers seriously enough, however, this is not the forum for that. I did at one time, and I did try to convert (and did convert) Catholics. You may email me at blessedsacrament2010@gmail.com if you like. I will comment on just a few of your words:
Paul, can you give me one theological position from your teachers you hold that is in contradiction to all of Calvin’s positions that we can discuss? I cannot sift the the numerous amorphous claims on the websites you link to come up with a single proposition. Maybe the theological systems are too complex for me to understand, so I will defer to your simple teaching. Let’s make the post really small so as to keep it understandable.
Paul, if I walk in a doctor’s office and tell you after looking at your skin color, that you have a disease, and I know this because I read something online; it DOES NOT follow that now I am an authority like the doctor. I guess Paul, maybe a question that would help our dialogue would be:
What do you consider the word authority to mean?
St. Cyprian, who did what you and I have not done for our faith-namely die for it, said, “unless you have the Church as your Mother, you cannot have God as your Father”
You have two possible ways to interpret this: (1) say that St. Cyprian was creating something new, some type of novel sinister plot to undo the Gospel or (2) by virtue of him having received the Gospel from Tertullian, who was one of the first recipient’s of the Gospel at the hands of Church missionaries in North Africa, it was in fact the Apostolic teaching. We know that Tertullian was conversant with scripture and the writings of St. Clement who was trained by the beloved disciple John himself. Could this be an apostolic teaching or will you reject it because you don’t “see it” in scripture? Would St. Paul chastise you for rejecting this teaching according to his letter to the Thessalonians that we should hold fast to the “tradition” both “oral and written” (Th 2:15)? Do you reject oral tradition and thereby make the word of God of no effect because of your man-made tradition?
I’ll defer to Bryan as to your comments to him.
Peace to you on your journey.
Paul,
You sound like myself about 5 years ago. However, it should make you a little uncomfortable that NO ONE….not even the Reformers agree with the scenerio for the church put forward in your last comment . Not until around 200-300 years ago do you begin to see what you describe. Even if your polemic against Rome should satisfy you, that leaves Orthodoxy untouched…meaning that historically you have no where to turn for support except for snippets here and there among heretical groups. Appealing to the Holy Spirit and the scripture does not take you where you want to go. But interacting with the ancient church is a good thing and glad to see you doing that here.
Peace.
Brent, I would refer you to the creeds. I never heard of a Roman Catholic who denied Jesus was God in Human flesh. So you just think he a man? That would me you are no Christian at all!
“Perhaps this is where the free/bound will error creeps into your theology.”
Brent, Read Romans chapter 9 and the first 3 Chapters of Ephesians and then get back with me.
Canadian @ 559- That is so chock full of heresy I don’t know where to begin. I also refer you to the chapters I recomended for Brent. In fact, I recomend both of you to study Romans and challenge you to push away the thought “That can’t be” as you read it. When I was a pelagian I always thought “That can’t be, I must be misunderstanding this” when I would try to read Romans. As I learned about the doctrines of the historic faith such as original sin, justification, and sanctification (which you guys seem to deny) the pieces fell into place and I was finally able to accept the plain meaning of the text.
Jason,
Let’s get one thing straight, I’m not denying that God was in Human flesh. I apologize for it appearing that I was making the claim “based” upon your quote alone. I’ll admit that is a fair reading of my comment.
I was putting that idea together with your understanding of the will to arrive at my statement about your position. I think what Canadian and I are talking about is the nature of that union not wether or not God came in the flesh and dwelt among men. (Jn 1). I’ll defer to your dialogue with Canadian since he expressed it more succinctly. I think we’ve reached the end of our collective rope here.
(Thanks for the advice! I did a word study of Ephesians last night.)
Peace to you on your journey.
Brent
“Brent, Read Romans chapter 9 and the first 3 Chapters of Ephesians and then get back with me.”
I can’t speak for Brent, but I have spent three decades studying these texts (though unfortunately without a reading knowledge of Greek). The commentarial literature is vast. It simply cannot be responsibly asserted that the plain meaning of these texts is obvious and plain, nor can it be responsibly asserted that the confessional Reformed and Lutheran models of justification are plainly and uncontroversially supported by Holy Scripture, as is now widely acknowledged in Protestant scholarship. The New Perspective, represented by E. P. Sanders, James Dunn, N. T. Wright, and, most recently, Douglas Campbell, has dramatically changed the exegetical landscape. The confessionalists, of course, have launched their counter-attacks; but regardless, the old Protestant consensus has been broken. The plain meaning of Scripture is no longer so plain.
Jason,
I am surprised at your shock, so I re-read my #559 and I’ll just clarify the first part. You may have read it as if I was saying that Christ inherited sin and assumed it. My comment should be read like this:
“But Christ has free human will not because he has no sin [I was not saying Christ has sin here, but responding to your comment that Christ had free will BECAUSE he had no sin], but He has it [free will] because it was a property of the [human] nature he assumed [the will is a faculty of nature not person]. He received it [free will] from Mary just like every aspect of his humanity. The humanity he assumed was fallen, but not sinful. [natures do not sin, person’s do]
Maybe you did not read my comment incorrectly and you do think it is still chock full of heresy even without my clarifications. Please clarify. More when I get home from work.
Jason,
I am coming from a Reformed Baptist viewpoint and am heading to Orthodoxy, so I once felt like I made the discovery you allude to regarding the reformed “gospel” of justification-sola fide-by imputation-extra nos, and passionately defended the views you espouse from Roman’s and Ephesians.
When you say “the doctrines of the historic faith”–that history and interpretation begins in the 16th century and not before! It’s only cherry picking and spoof texting to propose differently. For me, when I saw that Reformation/Evangelical theology so often attacks proper Christology and destroys the Christ I love, the game was over.
I could do the same thing with Romans and Ephesians showing uncomfortable issues for reformation theology but this all comes back to who has the right of interpretive authority, the church or the individual?
The 6th Council condemned monotheletism and monoenergism, one will and one principle of operation in Christ, BECAUSE if he did not unite to himself “perfect humanity”, then the union of man to God both in Christ and in us collapses. But this is not all, it also condemns the divine will overriding, overwhelming or compelling the human will in Christ and therefore in us as well. The council stated that his wills are not contrary to each other but his human will freely, not resisting or reluctantly follows the divine will. Also it says “so also his human will, athough deified, was not suppressed but was rather preserved….”
Monergism is incompatible with this!
Romans is covenantal. It’s less about the mechanics of individual salvation than it is about nations and how God has brought salvation beyond and through the nation of Israel and her covenant, to the whole world through Christ. Esau and Jacob is not a discourse on Supralapsarianism, but showing the freedom of God to bring salvation even to Israel by promise and not natural human lineage, birthrights, or works. He says it is to come to the whole world by the New Covenant without eliminating a regrafting of Israel through the same new covenant but not through her old covenant and works of the law. It is not teaching that God has the right to sovereignly damn and save whoever he pleases, rather….
“because of unbelief they were broken off and you stand by faith. Do not be haughty but fear. For if God did not spare the natural branches, He may not spare your either. Therefore consider the goodness and severity of God: on those who fell, severity; but toward you, goodness if you continue in His goodness. Otherwise you also will be cut off. And they also, if they do not continue in unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again.” Romans 11
And verse 28 says Concerning the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but concerning the election they are beloved for the sake of the fathers.”
Grace and peace.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
An awefull lot of guys that read Greek are on my side. N.T. Wright and his ilk are politicians, not theologians. The have an ecumenical agenda and want to make some way of not saying in a post-holocaust world that Jews who do not believe in Christ will be in Hell. Plain and simple. The meaning is plain and the scholars you listed would know it if they would take whole epistles and read the whole thing in one sitting beginning to end.
Brent and Canadian. Read Luther’s on the Bondage of the Will. I think you do not understand the concept. Furthermore, if Mary was sinless but came from sinfull parents how is it that she is sinless? If she came from sinfull parents then Jesus does not need her to be sinless for him to be sinless (your scenario would actually imply that God can’t do something). Furthermore, if Mary were sinless she would have not feared the Angel that came to visit her nor called Jesus her saviour because she would not have needed saving. Also, at one point she and Joseph actually lost Jesus and were upset and worried (if she were sinless she would not worry because one who trusts God perfectly need not worry). See, the Roman Catholic system when compared with the Bible is shown to be a house of Cards.
Been reading St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Gelatians. Guess what! He sounds exactly like a Lutheran, except he does go out of his way to the point of denying the text to make Peter look good. That does not matter because there are plenty of others that took the plain meaning of the text on that part.
Jason,
Why have you move the discussion from Christ to Mary? When I mentioned that Christ received every part and aspect of his humanity from Mary I was meaning that he received his humanity from US, her humanity is our humanity. We are consubstantial with Christ regarding our human nature. Orthodoxy does not embrace the immaculate conception of Mary but lets leave that alone here.
Luther states we “are compelled by natural necessity to sin and perish”. If you place us under natural compulsion, you place Christ under natural compulsion. His divine Person employed his Natural human free will without compulsion, so the natural human will is not compelled. It has a natural freedom given by God but each Person then takes what is natural and acts in a unique and individual way….either for or against his nature. Paul talks about homosexuality being “against nature”, homosexuals are not naturally compelled but personally act against nature, just as we all do when we sin.
“(if she were sinless she would not worry because one who trusts God perfectly need not worry)”
Gethsemane.
“An awefull lot of guys that read Greek are on my side. N.T. Wright and his ilk are politicians, not theologians. The have an ecumenical agenda and want to make some way of not saying in a post-holocaust world that Jews who do not believe in Christ will be in Hell. Plain and simple. The meaning is plain and the scholars you listed would know it if they would take whole epistles and read the whole thing in one sitting beginning to end.”
In other words, the meaning of Romans is patent because you say so: anyone who disagrees with you is not a true theologian.
I hate to bring you the bad news, Jason, but the paradigm shift is already occurring. The ship has left the dock. Just as physicists reached a point where they were forced to abandon, or at least qualify, their adherence to the Newtonian model, so it is the case that New Testament scholars are abandoning, or at least qualifying, their adherence to the imputational model of justification. They are doing so because other models of justification make better sense of the historical data.
You claim that if only people would read Romans and Ephesians from beginning to end they too would see the truth as plainly as you see it. Do you not see the hubris and silliness of this claim? You are neither a neutral observer nor disinterested scholar. You are reading Scripture (and the Church Fathers) through your Lutheran confessional spectacles. You see what these spectacles allow you to see. Your theological, ecclesiological, and ideological commitments are determining the meaning of what you read. Simply consider the differences between Lutherans, Reformed, Methodists, and Baptists. Each party believes that they have grasped the plain meaning of Scripture, yet the parties disagree dramatically on how St Paul understood the sacrament of Holy Baptism, which is a constitutive and essential element of St Paul’s understanding of justification.
Have you ever read John Henry Newman’s lectures on justification?
Jason,
You may be “orthodox” by definition on Lutheran grounds, but that is just slightly question begging.
And by free will what conditions on freedom do you have in mind? Soft Determinist ones or Libertarian ones? Does Christ have libertarian freedom in his humanity for a “Confessional Lutheran” or no?
And Canadian seems quite right,that Jesus’ had a human free will because he was genuinely human and since he is consubstantial with us via the Theotokos w ehave such a will qua nature too. We just will it gnomically whereas Christ does not.
Not as I see it but what the text plainly says if they believe. I have been reading St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians and he writes thus far exactly as a Lutheran would and not as I would expect from a modern day Roman Catholic.
Paradigms may shift but God and His truth never change. It sounds like to me that you place all the authority in you and your community rather than God and His word.
Perry Robinson, no, you are wrong, Jesus had free will because He was sinless. Read the Pauline Epistles. I am Orthodox by the standards Scripture, Creeds, and Early Church Councils. I actually took a test and got 100% compliance with the Council of Chalcedon. As far as all that other stuff I am not much impressed with Philosophy. I will say this, you may choose civil righteousness, you may choose ketchup on your fries or leave it, you may choose a wife, but you may not choose the righteousness of faith. See Romans 9 and Ephesians 2:8-10. I would also recomend Luther’s “On the Bondage of the Will”. Also, Gerhardt Forde’s “On being a Theologian of the Cross” also “The Theology of the Cross: Reflections on His Cross and Ours” by Daniel Deutschelander.
Jason, I’ve read the same commentary and I can’t see anything distinctly Lutheran in it. what in it is distinctly Lutheran do you think?
And have you read scholastic commentaries on it? They only read differently in the main by methodology.
Jason #570,
I have read De Servo Arbitrio.
Luther says,
A few observations:
1. This is the error PBXVI (among others) sees in the development of Scottistic voluntarism through the nominalist tradition. Further, Scotus’s notion of modal logic (a true father of synchronous modal logic) is important to understand against the traditional diachronic model. The necessity of the will’s freedom at t(1) to do A orB is at the heart of what Luther is saying. To the Doctor Subtilis’s credit, in the De primo he argues against the notion that as humans we (in time) can operate under the same modal notions as God (out of time), but sadly the seed had already been planted.
Recommended reading:
-S. Knuuttila, “Time and Modality in Scholasticism,” Reforging the Great Chain of Being. Vol. 20 (London: D. Reidel Publishing Company, 1981).
-John Duns Scotus, De primo principio, text and tr. in A Treatise on God as First Principle. A Latin text and English translation of the De Primo Principio, 2nd rev. ed, with commentary, Allan B. Woltor. (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1984).
(I studied with Dr. Frank who did his Ph.D on Scotus under Allan Woltor at Catholic U)
2. Further, we see that Luther is not doing sola scriptura but philosophy since the “since” does not necessarily follow from the premise but is due to a philosophical commitment about the nature of divine foreknowledge. What’s troubling is that in scripture we get the clear notion that, for example, God’s will is that “all should come to eternal life” yet in reality this is not so. Does that mean that God’s will is somehow imperfect? Of course not, but I could come to that conclusion if I had a philosophical or theological pre-commitment that required God’s will being “perfect” to mean “all that it wills is in fact actual”.
Peace to you on your journey.
“Not as I see it but what the text plainly says if they believe. I have been reading St. John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Galatians and he writes thus far exactly as a Lutheran would and not as I would expect from a modern day Roman Catholic. Paradigms may shift but God and His truth never change. It sounds like to me that you place all the authority in you and your community rather than God and His word.”
Perhaps to put the matter more accurately, I place more authority in my community’s reading of Holy Scripture than in my own private reading of Holy Scripture. But in fact, so do you. I gather you are a confessional Lutheran of some stripe (Missouri Synod?). Clearly you believe that the Lutherans are reading Scripture rightly, as opposed not only to the RCs and Orthodox but also to the Reformed, Methodists, Baptists, and nondenominational evangelicals. All of the Protestant parties here mentioned also believe that their positions are supported by the plain reading of Scripture. Are you such an expert in the New Testament and the theological tradition that you can, on your own authority and scholarly competence, declare them to be wrong? Are you really that confident and certain? Are you not, in fact, putting your trust in the theological judgment of your fellow Lutherans?
I’ll tell you what, why don’t you work your way through Douglas Campbell’s The Deliverance of God and get back to us.
Jason, you have invoked St John Chrysostom several times as supporting the Lutheran understanding of justification. This reading of St John is implausible, as any Eastern Orthodox scholar will tell you (perhaps Perry can chime in here). Chrysostom did not hold an Augustinian/Lutheran understanding of original sin and was a synergist through and through. I’m sure Chrysostom can be quoted as affirming that we are saved by grace. I’m sure he can be quoted as affirming that we are saved by faith and not by works of the Law. But this doesn’t mean that he held a Reformation understanding of justification by faith alone. He certainly did not teach absolute predestination.
Perry, Chrysostom has a clear distinction between Law and Gospel and righteousness of faith vs righteousness of the Law. Salvation by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone…Very Lutheran.
Brent,
“Further, we see that Luther is not doing sola scriptura but philosophy”
I don’t know how you “do sola scriptura” but Luther’s “philosophy” is in accord with scripture and is grounded in the scriptures. I also recomend Luther’s “Heidelberg Disputation”. Also Romans 9.
Jason,
You repeated:
“Perry Robinson, no, you are wrong, Jesus had free will because He was sinless.”
The councils are clear that what Christ assumed retained it’s own natural properties. The natures were in hypostatic union WITHOUT CHANGE. What you seem to be saying is that God the Son was sinless so therefore the human nature he assumed from Mary must have changed in order to have the property of free will. Or maybe you think the will is hypostatic and therefore free because He is a divine Person. Either way, it’s not Conciliar, biblical, Creedal, but heresy.
“Chrysostom has a clear distinction between Law and Gospel and righteousness of faith vs righteousness of the Law. Salvation by grace alone, faith alone, Christ alone…Very Lutheran.”
But Chrysostom’s language needs to be unpacked to determine whether Chrysostom approaches a Lutheran position. Verbal similarities are insufficient.
I am quite confident that Chrysostom operates from within one might be called the transformationist model of salvation, as opposed to the imputationist model. That is to say, he does not think of the gift of righteousness as an imputation of righteousness but as a real bestowal of life and the infusion of grace. This is confirmed by the following passage:
In other words, when God declares we are righteous, we are truly made righteous in the totality of our being. Justification is not just forensic but also re-creative. As the great Reformed theologian, Thomas F. Torrance, put it:
<blockquote.Forgiveness is not just a word of pardon but a word translated into our existence by crucifixion and resurrection, by judgment and recreation. … Justification is not only a declaratory act, but an actualization of what is declared. … The resurrection tells us that when God declares a man just, that man is just. Resurrection means that the Word which God sent on his mission does not return to God void but accomplishes that for which he was sent.
Now compare this passage from Cardinal Newman:
This is the catholic doctrine of justification. In what ways do you object to it?
582. You are confusing Justification and Sanctification. Sanctification may flow from Justification but it is not Justification. See Paul’s Epistle to the Romans on Imputation.
581. Cananadian, do you just realize that you just implied that Jesus was a sinner. Look up traducianism. It will help you understand things a bit better. Jesus did not inherit sin and had perfectly free will just like Adam before the fall because He was concieved by the Holy Spirit. That is why it is not necessary for Mary to be immaculately conceived. I think the Roman Catholic argument must be that Mary fell from Heaven into her mother’s womb oder was?
Also 582. “But Chrysostom’s language needs to be unpacked to determine whether Chrysostom approaches a Lutheran position. Verbal similarities are insufficient.”
That is what I would say too if I did not want to believe what the text said.
Also 582. “In other words, when God declares we are righteous, we are truly made righteous in the totality of our being.”
Did you sin lately? Now if you added the qualifier that when we die or when Jesus comes back we are totally righteous then I would say yes. I don’t see anything in the quoted text to support the Roman Catholic position over against the Biblical one but I will look it up in context when I have more time.
582 Looking at it now. Not seeing anything distinctly Roman Catholic yet.
Jason,
Losts of people do have a clear distinction between law and gospel, it doesn’t follow that the clarity of the distinction entails Lutheran conceptual content. So far all I am seeing here is the word-concept fallacy over and over again. You need to show that Chrysostom expresses the Lutheran concepts. Even Pelagius speaks of salvation by “faith alone.” Chrysostom thinks that divine righteousness is grounded in the agent and is not forensic. Chrysostom is no nominalist about soteriological taxonomies.
As for Canadian’s remarks, no he didn’t and asserting as much doesn’t show it. It would only make Jesus a sinner if nature and person were the same thing. Sin strictly speaking is in the use of the will, not the will itself and Jesus never uses a weak human will to sin. So this has nothing to do with Traducianism, but rather right thinking about the Incarnation.
Jason,
“That is what I would say too if I did not want to believe what the text said.”
This is clearly ad hominem. I could retort,
“That is what I would say too if I didn’t want to believe that the text couldn’t support my assertions.”
You need to pick a text and show that Chrysostom expresses a distinctly Lutheran idea. Good luck.
Jason,
This is a warning. If your future comments continue to impugn the motives and intelligence of your interlocutors and scholars with whom you disagree, they will not be published. Additionally, future comments that consist of a number and a dismissive statement will not be published. Please respond directly to the arguments the other people are making here. This requires you to proceed a little more slowly than you have been. We welcome your presence here and I think many people gain something when they observe this dialogue. Yet one can outlast his welcome.
[Also, Jason and everyone might benefit from reading the commenting guidelines for the first or second time. They are located at the top of the page in the “About” section. BHT]
Everyone,
The tension here has increased a bit. Try not to gang up on Jason all at once. Also, I think you need to show him step-by-step where you see him going wrong. This requires a little loving patience from you for obvious reasons. Remember that we are here to pursue unity in the truth and that many people do not receive deep education in Christology beyond a surface gloss of the Nicene controversy.
pax,
Barrett
Jason, what I’d like to do is to put aside Lutheran/Catholic disagreement and read and assess scholarly Protestant analyses of justification in the Apostle Paul. The literature is vast but I recommend the following:
Michael Bird, *The Saving Righteousness of God* (Paternoster, 2007)
Michael Bird, “Incorporated Righteousness”
Mark Seifrid, *Christ, our Righteousness* (IVP, 2000)
Paul Gorman, *Inhabiting the Cruciform God* (Eerdmans, 2009)
Douglas Campbell, *The Deliverance of God* (Eerdmans, 2009)
I think you will discover that justification in Paul is a lot bigger than the law/gospel, wrath/grace dialectic. It’s all about union with Christ and participation in the Trinitarian life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Anyway, this concludes my participation in this thread for the time being.
Fr Kimel
Jason #583,
First of all, thank you for the interaction on this thread. I hope none of my comments have come across arrogantly or tersely.
Traducianism relates to a discussion of whether the soul is recieved by generation or created directly by God’s creative act. The Councils do not delve into that question to my knowlege, but do affirm Christ received a rational soul and body from the Theotokos.
I don’t know why you keep connecting sin with Christ from my comments. I think it is because you assume that there is such thing as a sinful nature. The NIV wrongly translates the greek sarx as sinful nature. Nature is not sinful but fallen, corruptable, damaged, mortal. Christ did not inherit sin but assumed our nature to do what the ancient liturgy says “trample death by death” and do what we could not through the weakness of the flesh. Rom 8:9 says we are not in the flesh if we are in Christ, does that mean we are no longer in our “nature”?
You admitted Jesus has free human will. Where did he get it? I am trying to show you that he received it from Mary because he assumed our human nature from her whole and entire without changing it. If human nature was sinful, he necessarily would have assumed sin. It was not essentially sinful so he did not assume sin. Human will is an essential property of our human nature which he assumed. We use our natural free human will in individual and personal ways that are sinful. Sin is personal not natural otherwise everyone’s sins would be exactly the same due to our nature being exactly the same.
The Prosphoneticus to the Emporer is part of the 6th Ecumenical Council and it states:
“For should we say that the human nature of our Lord is without will and operation, how could we affirm in safety the perfect humanity? For nothing else constitutes the integrity of human nature except the essential will, through which the strength of free-will is marked in us; and this is also the case with the substantial operation.”
The Council protects the integrity of Christ’s full humanity by appealing to it’s nature, not His sinlessness. Free-will is a component of the natural human will. THIS IS WHERE JESUS CHRIST GOT HIS FREE HUMAN WILL!
Peace in Christ.
Canadian,
I think a couple of things might be lurking in Jason’s thining. The first is that he seems to think of free will as gnomically willing something, that is it could be a good or bad object of choice. So if Christ is impeccable, then he could’t have free will in that sense where that sense is fre will simpliciter. Second, his view seems to turn on thinking of the will as hypostatic, that is personal and so free will falls out of his sinlessness. But as I am sure you are aware, both routes are problematic, because the power of choice is natural, not personal, though it is used by the person. And free will isn’t incompatible with impeccability, though it is so with respect to the ojects of choice being limited to one object, at least for Libertarians. So free will lisn’t necessarily gnomic willing. The relation is asymmetrical-all gnomic willing is free willing, but not all free willing is gnomic willing-Trinity, Christ’s human willing, the saints in heaven all being cases of impeccable free willing but not gnomic free willing. lastly, I don’t think he means free will what could satisfy the conditions laid down on freedom for libertarians. he probably has a narrower soft determinist notion of freedom or at best a source incompatibilist notion.
Perry,
Thanks for your additions. Please feel free to correct anything I have said.
I know when I first had my Reformed view of the will challenged by the Councils, scripture and the church’s Christology, I gagged and choked on it like Jason is. But once I noticed that my positions attacked biblical and Orthodox Christology, I relinquished my personal interpretation of Romans, Galatians and Ephesians. I too asked him earlier if he thought the will was a faculty of Person (hypostasis), Christ being a sinless Person and for that reason having free will. This would be a heretical view. That is not a personal attack against Jason or anyone else, I also thought the same until recently.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but for Jason’s and others sake, you bring up the gnomic will which Maximus the Confessor articulated is the PERSONAL use of the Natural will that is free but deliberates, doubts, shows uncertainty as to what is the true good. This leads us to choose what seems good to us but not necessarily good according to God and often is “against nature”—in a word, sin. Jesus did not have this problem as he is a divine person and always employs his human will for the ultimate good with every use of his free faculty of will which he has from us by nature. Just as we will do when in heaven….freely and always choose the good.
Canadian,
gnomic willing is *a* personal use, it is not the only kind of personal use of the will since Christ has no gnomic mode of willing. A gnomic mode of willing is when the person’s use and their natural faculty of willing are not yet fused or fixed.This is why it is possible for created agents to sin until such time as their hypostatic use of the will and the will’s natural telos congeal and become fixed. Hence any agent that has a begining will have a gnomic mode of willing for at least some period. But Christ is not an agent who has a begining and so this is why he as no gnomic will. This is why impeccability and libertarian free will are not incompatible, contra Mackie.
Gnomic willing also in part depends on the difference between real and apparent goods. Christ on theother hand (and the saints in heaven and God at creation) chooses between really (but inseperable) distinct (divine) goods and no apparent goods. Consequently there is no hesitation or deliberation for Maximus in Christ either.
Everything else you wrote looks peachy keen.
“Again, they said that he who adhered to Faith alone was cursed, but he shows that he who adhered to Faith alone, is blessed.” -St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Gelatians
NOTICE THE “ALONE”?
“Ver. 12. “And the Law is not of faith; but He that doeth them shall live in them.” For the Law requires not only Faith but works also, but grace saves and justifies by Faith. (Eph. ii. 8.) You see how he proves that they are under the curse who cleave to the Law, because it is impossible to fulfill it;” – St. John Chrysostom, from the same as above.
“But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting,1281 and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” -St. John Chrysostom
Jason,
Well, Sola Fide is more than the mere use of similar words. Pelagius uses the same words in a similar fashion, but you don’t think he believes in sola fide. So this is nothing more than the word-concept fallacy. You need to demonstrate that Chrysostom expresses the idea that faith is the only formal cause of justification. Augustine speaks for example in a similar way, because he thinks that faith is the first and only virtue in the sol which grounds the declaration, but other virtues through co-operation can be added. Consequently Augustine doesn’t believe in sola fide either.
Yes, I notice the “alone.” :) And what do you thus infer from these two citations?
Several questions come to mind:
1) How does St John Chrysostom understand faith, especially within the context of his exegesis of Galatians? When he says “faith alone,” what precisely does he mean by faith and what does he exclude?
2) When St John says that we are justified by faith, is he speaking of initial justification (conversion and baptism), final justification at the Last Day, or both? How does St John envision the forgiveness of serious sins committed by the baptized?
3) How do you interpret the following citations from St John:
Commenting on the fate of the wedding guest: “Therefore, beloved, let not us either expect that faith is sufficient to us for salvation; for if we do not show forth a pure life, but come clothed with garments unworthhy of this blessed calling, nothing hinders us from suffering the same as that wretched one” (Homilies on John 10.3).
“Then in order that not even these should put confidence in their faith alone, He discourses to them also concerning the judgment to be passed upon wicked actions; to them that have not yet believed, or coming to Him by faith, and to them that have believed, of care with respect to their life. For the garment is life and practice. And yet the calling was of grace; why then does He take a strict account. Because although to be called and to be cleansed was of grace, yet, when called and clothed in clean garments, to continue keeping them so, this is of the diligence of those who are called. The being called was not of merit, but of grace” (Homilies on Matthew 69:2).
“First the font cleanses, afterwards other ways also, many and of all kinds. For God, being merciful, has even after this given to us various ways of reconciliation, of all which the first is that by alms-doing. ‘By alms-deeds,’ it says, ‘and deeds of faith sins are cleansed away’ (Homilies on John 73.)
“Let us reflect then how many burdens of sins each of us has about him, and let us make our acts of mercy counterbalance them; nay rather, far exceed them, that not only the sins may be quenched, but that the acts of righteousness may be also accounted unto us for righteousness. For if the good deeds be not so many in number as to put aside the crimes laid against us, and out of the remainder to be counted unto us for righteousness, then shall no one rescue us from that punishment, from which God grant that we may be all delivered, through the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father, etc.” (Homilies on Ephesians 24).
Unfortunately, I have not come across a comprehensive discussion of justification by faith in John Chrysostom. Perhaps his works are too voluminous. But for a brief discussion of the theme in the Church Fathers, see Nick Needham, “Justification in the Early Church Fathers,” in *Justification in Perspective* (ed Bruce L. McCormack).
Father,
Your citation from Homilies on John (73) brought to mind a related remark I just came across in St Cyril’s Catechetical Lectures (8.6). For context, he’s combatting the Manichean notion that wealth is of the devil; but the remarks are interesting in themselves:
“A man may even be justified by money: I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: that certainly was from money. I was naked, and ye clothed Me: that certainly was by money. And wouldst thou learn that money may become a door of the kingdom of heaven? Sell, saith He, that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven.
Oh yeah. I loves me some sola pecunia.
Have a blessed Lent.
Neal
Well, If you actually read John Chrysostom’s Homilies on Romans and Galatians the context makes it all pretty clear. I think part of the difficulty for Roman Catholics in understanding this is the fact that Roman Catholics don’t understand 1. Sola Fide and 2. the distinction between justification and sanctification and how sanctification flows from Justification and not the other way around (Ephesians 2:8-10) . I know Roman Catholics don’t understand these things and all of the Solas of the Reformation because they constantly misrepresent them. If they understood them they would be able to articulate them accurately (i.e. accusing protestants of teaching that good works don’t matter, or other false assertions like that Sola Scriptura is the same as Solo Scriptura. Now that I think of it “American Evangelicals” don’t understand them either.
“2) When St John says that we are justified by faith, is he speaking of initial justification (conversion and baptism), final justification at the Last Day, or both? How does St John envision the forgiveness of serious sins committed by the baptized?”
You would have to establish that the categories of initial justification and final justification actually exist in Scripture and in Chrysostom’s theology (which it doesn’t) and not just a creation of the New Perspective on Paul guys so that they can play nicey nice with the Pope.
Before I form my opinion on what Chrysostom means in those particular Homilies I would have to read them myself rather than taking Nick Needham’s word for it.
“What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. “For all,” it says, “have sinned:” but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified.” . ST. John Chrysostom
“But what is the “law of faith?” It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God’s power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting,1281 and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only.” -St. John Chrysostom
“So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He doth also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (κατασαπέντας) of sin suddenly righteous.” – St. John Chrysostom
“Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God,” St. John Chrysostom
It is clear that in Homily VII Chrysostom speaks of the Righteousness of God Imputed, that is, the righteousness of faith.
Repent and be forgiven of these pious denials of the Gospel so clearly proclaimed in the scriptures and in here in Chrysostom’s Homilies on Gelatians and Romans.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210207.htm
I have enjoyed reading the exploding discussion, yet haven’t commented in a while. What I like to do is cut to the chase. So here it goes.
What does Paul mean when he says this in Galatians 3:11 Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.” What does Paul mean when he says Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
I believe Paul is saying in these two verses that no person has one ounce of their own merit when it comes to their salvation. This is the essence of sola fide.
Hi VanPastorMan,
Thanks for your comment. The issue with the system of sola fide as you describe it is that it excludes merit obtained through cooperation with the prevenient grace of God and collapses the moment of justification and God’s final judgment into one. Both of these do violence to scripture and the catholic tradition, which distinguish between justification obtained in baptism as our incorporation into the body of Christ and the final judgment at which eternal life is awarded or withheld on the basis of our deeds. Every single time that the scriptures mention the final judgment and the basis on which that judgment is made, the deciding factor is what we do with God’s gracious gift, not simply whether or not we believe. This is a more straightforward way of stating what Jesus says in the parable of the talents. The talent is God’s gift to us, and each receives in his own measure. But only those who bring about an increase on what they’ve been given will receive the reward. The one who does nothing with his gift is punished.
So whatever Paul is saying in Galatians 3:11, then, it can’t be opposed to these other considerations. As I’ve done with others, I would recommend, if you are interested in a historical take on this, that you read St. Augustine’s relatively brief treatise On Grace and Free Will. In Chapters 1 – 16 he explains how it is possible for us to maintain without contradiction the fact that all of salvation is of God’s grace, that we really have free will, and that the bestowal of eternal life at the eschaton is based on our deeds, i.e. our response to God’s free gift of grace in baptism and our continued cooperation with the subsequent work that he is doing in us.
Jason (re #600),
Regarding St. John Chrysostom and his view on grace and the Law from his homilies on Romans.
Below he tackles verse 31 from Romans 3, stating
If you read the latter half of St. John Chrysostom’s homily you see that the Law was ordained by God to make men righteous but the Law by itself had no power to actually make man righteous. Yet as we hear from St. John Chrysostom’s understanding of St. Paul is that faith justifies a believer, which Catholics affirm, and furthermore St. John Chrysostom asserts that faith is not opposed to the Law, rather they work in close alliance and cooperation. According to St. John Chrysostom this is what the Jews longed to hear, how the observances of piety and God’s commandments fit perfectly with the idea that man is justified by faith. This is in some part I believe very similar to St. Augustine’s teaching on grace and our fulfillment of the Law by grace, which was impossible without grace. You can take a look at Bryan Cross’ full work in showing how St. Augustine understands how grace and law interact.
St. Augustine on Law and Grace
From just taking a preliminary look at the exert I provided from St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Romans 3, perhaps one notes that faith and the law for him have a close alliance and cooperation, which to me sounds very much like the way that St. Augustine understands salvation by grace and salvation through works of the law.
I think St. John Chrysostom’s homily on Matthew 6 and the Lord’s Prayer clarifies what exactly St. John means by the cooperation and close alliance between faith (grace) and the law.
Grace and works are complementary just as the law and grace become complementary under grace. One is forgiven not for simply having received grace but co-operating with grace and forgiving others, as St. John Chrysostom points out. It is not simply a one stop justification for St. John, but on ongoing transformation into a Christ-like image of God as you see St. John discusses being made like God in forgiving others. As St. John is pointing out, becoming like God and forgiving others can and does cause a means for God to desire to forgive us. Just as a side note I think this is where the idea of meriting an increase in justification comes from, the notion that God rewards us for participating with His grace and forgiving our sins as we forgive others.
I admit that I have not read much of St. John Chrysostom’s works, but just on browsing through a bit of him it seems that he is saying some similar things to St. Augustine’s ideas of grace and law, which is very similar to the Medieval Catholic notion of salvation. I hope somebody with a better background in St. John Chrysostom can correct me if I’ve mispoken or someone more knowledgeable about Medieval Catholic soteriology can add to what I’ve said or correct me.
God bless,
Steven Reyes
*sorry my source for St. John Chrysostom’s homilies was from the New Advent website in the Fathers tab. (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/index.html)
“Every single time that the scriptures mention the final judgment and the basis on which that judgment is made, the deciding factor is what we do with God’s gracious gift, not simply whether or not we believe. This is a more straightforward way of stating what Jesus says in the parable of the talents. The talent is God’s gift to us, and each receives in his own measure. But only those who bring about an increase on what they’ve been given will receive the reward. The one who does nothing with his gift is punished.”
Please back this up with scripture. By the way your interpretation of the parable is off. The guy who hid his money did not know the master who he thought was “a hard man”. He did not have faith, that is why he fell into judgement. If he had faith he would not have hid his “money”.
VanPastorMan hit the nail on the head.
Jason,
I have read the texts in question in their entirety as have a number of specialists in Chrysostom and none of them think he taught sola fide. Have you read them cover to cover?
Secondly, I do not misrepresent sola fide. You can see how I have represented the idea clearly here. (https://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/04/09/no-gospel-for-augustine/ )
Third as for initial justification, there is plenty of support for the notion in his writings for he is quite clear that we increase in the virtue of justice in our co-operating work in justification under the influence of grace. That is uncontroversial in the academic works on John. And the distinction is not a creation of the NPP folks since its in Augustine as well.
The material from Chrysostom do not prove your point for a few simple reasons. Augustine says as much and we know that Augustine didn’t teach sola fide. The idea that the law was unable to save is not a distinctive part of sola fide. Nor is the idea that when one believes a man is justified, as again, Augustine and plenty of other Fathers say the same.
Likewise sola fide is more than the thesis of sola gratia. One can affirm the latter and not the former. Sola fide is the thesis in the main that faith is the only formal cause of justification and so faith is in and of itself valueless as a basis for declaring us justified but is a conduit for the transfer of moral credit. Justification therefore has its form from the dependent nature of faith and so it is sometimes called an instrumental cause. Consequently the justice applied to us is forensic an ungrounded in the state of the agent, and this is not what Chrysostom thinks and what you’d need to prove.
So none of the language of faith only, declaring righteous and such prove sola fide because sola fide entails far more than that. This is why Chrysostom held to theosis, and speaks of it as a making righteous and not a forensic affair in justification. And so again, without providing any analysis it seems these are just more spoof texts. That is to say there is no argument proving what you claim, just a listing of texts with words you assume mean what you take them to mean.
I find this very confusing for a couple of reasons:
1) I’ve read here that under the Catholic system, one achieves or is guaranteed salvation as long as one is in a “state of grace” at death, in other words, does not have unrepented mortal sin in their life. Is this not correct? I believe that Bryan Cross has stated this several time in various threads on this site. If so, then your ultimate destination has nothing to do with your works.
2) I also thought your works determine your merit, which determines how long you remain in purgatory, not your ultimate destination (heaven or hell).
Can someone clear up my confusion? Thanks.
Perry makes a crucial point that Jason and others need to attend to. It is insufficient to harvest the Fathers for quotes that say that we are justified by faith and not by the law in order to prove that the Fathers also taught the Reformation understanding of the sola fide. We need first to specify precisely what the sola fide means and only then can we see if the Fathers taught this doctrine.
Jason has foolishly asserted that Catholics do not understand the Reformation doctrine. This is nonsense, especially when speaking of Catholics who contribute to this forum, many of whom are converts from Protestantism. I know that have I read deeply in Lutheran and (to a lesser extent) Reformed literature on this subject. The construal of justification that I taught during my 25 years as an Anglican priest probably approximated the Lutheran understanding, more than anything else (though with a strong dose of T. F. Torrance thrown in). I am not ashamed to say that my sympathies continue to lie with Luther in many respects.
I wish I had a better understanding of St John Chrysostom than I do, and am hesitant to say much about his understanding of justification, one way or the other. But I am dubious of attempts to read the Lutheran sola fide back into him. This seems exceptionally unlikely. Lutherans operate with a model of simultaneity: we are at the same time totally righteous and totally sinful (simul iustus et peccator). The Church Fathers operated within a model of transformation (at least I’m pretty sure that they did). Consequently, the language of “faith alone” functions differently for the Fathers than it did for Luther and the Lutheran confessions. This is why it is difficult for Lutherans and Catholics to understand each other on the subject of justification and sanctification.
Consider, for example, this passage from Chrysostom’s first homily on Ephesians:
Can one really see imputed righteousness in this passage? Doesn’t it make more sense if Chrysostom understands justification as a real transformation and bestowal of grace? At least I think it does.
Steve G (re: #609)
You wrote:
That conclusion does not follow. Yes, a person enters the beatific vision only if he dies in a state of grace. If after baptism (or after confession) a person commits a mortal sin, and does not repent, and dies in that state of mortal sin, he cannot enter heaven. (Benedict XII, in Benedictus Deus, declared, “According to God’s general ordinance, the souls of those who die in a personal grievous sin descend immediately into hell, where they will be tormented by the pains of hell.”) But the fact that only those who die in a state of grace enter the beatific vision does not mean that eternal life is not awarded or withheld on the basis of our works. If we commit a mortal sin, and do not repent, then eternal life is withheld from us, because we have withheld ourselves from it by our choice to commit mortal sin and our choice not to repent of it. If, however, after receiving sanctifying grace, we persevere to the end in works done in agape, then eternal life is not only a gift from God, it is also a just reward from God for those works we have done through His gift of grace. Hence Trent VI.16 says:
Next you wrote:
Our works do determine our merit, but, also our eternal destiny. Grace does not destroy nature. Christ’s sacrifice does not bypass the Judgment; it truly makes us righteous (through the sacraments), so that God can truly (without speaking falsely) say “Well done good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of your master.” So many Protestants are so used to a Judgment-bypass conception of salvation, as though Christ makes the Judgment unnecessary (for Christians, since they think the final verdict has already been declared, based on the extra nos imputation of the alien righteousness of Christ), that it is shocking to them to discover that our eternal destiny will be determined by our works, and that Christ came to actually make us righteous, not to allow us to hide behind Christ’s righteousness on the Day of Judgment, or to have Him take our place on the Day of Judgment as is depicted by the following video:
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Thanks for sharing that video, Bryan. I can see how people are attracted to that understanding. It is very simple, and also very beautiful in a certain sense. Ultimately, however, it isn’t good news because the gentleman who was “saved” at the end will still struggle with his tendency to sin in eternity (if he lusted after women, his lust doesn’t go away in this understanding). That doesn’t sound like paradise to me.
The good news is that Christ’s salvific work is so strong that it actually has the power to help us stop sinning. God didn’t just pretend that we are righteous. He actually makes us righteous through the entire experience of what it means to be human (Faith, works, understanding). That sounds like good news to me.
Uh, actually, it does based upon my understanding as stated (which I admit, may be wrong). If “state of grace” only means a lack of mortal sin, then it does follow that works have nothing to do with it, only the lack of mortal sin. Now you can say, and perhaps you mean to say that “state of grace” means more than just a lack of mortal sin, and perhaps my understanding is incorrect, but as I described my understanding of “state of grace”, it does indeed follow from that understanding.
So my question to you now, what is the meaning of “state of grace”? Is it more than just a lack of mortal sin? Several Catholic sites I went to only mentioned this but I take it there is more required then?
Secondly, if your works aren’t enough to get you out of purgatory, then how can they save you? If they don’t merit you avoiding purgatory, then how can they merit your salvation? The first is lesser, the second is greater so it seems illogical or at least odd that your works can save you but yet can’t get you out of purgatory.
Lastly, if works are required for and merit salvation, then how much/many are required? Is there some cut off?
NOTE: I really don’t mean to be rude – and I do mean that – but I’d prefer the “Cliff notes” version of a response. I’m not a fan of large block quotes from the Fathers or Councils or Popes when seeking a simple explanation. If you’re debating a point and wanting to provide evidence by citing/quoting Fathers, etc, that’s fine. But I’m just asking for a plain English layman’s explanation of some points of Catholic doctrine. Thanks.
Steve G, (re: #613)
You wrote:
From the fact that those who die in a state of grace go to heaven, it does not follow that works have nothing to do with salvation, for the reasons I explained in my previous comment.
“State of grace” does not mean “lack of mortal sin,” though necessarily anyone in a state of grace is not in a state of mortal sin. A rock does not have a mortal sin, but that doesn’t mean that the rock is in a state of grace; and that shows that being in a state of grace is not just lacking mortal sin. To be in a “state of grace” is to have sanctifying grace, faith, hope and agape in one’s soul. I have explained this briefly but in more detail in “A Reply from a Romery Person.”
They can be enough for a person not to need to go to purgatory. We should all be striving to die in such a state that we do not need to go to purgatory.
See my immediately preceding two sentences.
It is a question that doesn’t get it, like a man asking a woman, “How many things do I need to do for you in order to get you to agree to marry me?”
For salvation, only one work is required: to love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself for God’s sake.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
@ Steve G
Cliff Notes
When we speak about “salvation”, all Christians are actually meaning two things.
1.) Salvation from our sins
2.) Eschatological Fulfillment.
It does not follow that if one “has no sins” one will achieve eschatological fulfillment. To say that because X exists, God must do Y, violates God’s sovereignty. Because God created Adam, it does not follow that God must give to Adam Eschatological Fulfillment (plants do not have Eschatological Fulfillment and they have never sinned) In the Catholic concept of things, salvation from our sins is accomplished by the Crucifixion, BUT it is the Ascension that allows for man to arrive at Eschatological Fulfillment.
Now it should be quite clear that Catholics believe that man cannot save himself from his sins, only the Crucifixion can do that.
Eschatological Fulfillment is where things get different. Many Protestant theologies flattens or simply ignore the meaning of the Ascension. This is because “salvation from sins” is taken as Eschatological Fulfillment and thus the Ascension lacks real meaning.
For the Catholic, Eschatological Fulfillment is understood as Theosis / Divinization — participation in the divine nature. The concept is basically the reverse of the incarnation/ hypostatic union in Jesus (one Divine person with a human and a divine nature, where the natures are not co-mingled or one being subsumed by the other) so that a human in heaven is “one human person with a human and divine nature…..”. Thus the action of a saint is such that the action is a coterminous action but one in which God is originator and end so that Christ is both Alpha and Omega in the order of grace and act and merit, but also so that man is a true actor.
Eschatological Fulfillment must be “complete”. For many Protestants, that is simply being “completely forgiven of one’s sins”. For the Catholic, complete fulfillment is “complete communion” aka with-unioning aka Theosis.
Thus the answer to your question of if works are required for and merit salvation, then how much/many are required? the answer is not a quantity but rather a quality. It is not how much work must be done, but rather that the work must be perfect. This is both in the sense that the human person must be made perfect as well as all activity that the individual does must be in perfect union with the Trinity, so that God is source, sustainer, and consummator of the human activity and human person.
Man arrives at Eschatological Fulfillment through being healed of his fallen condition and being brought into participation in the Divine Life through participation in the “common life” of the saints and participation in the sacraments. It is the way of the pilgrim and the pilgrims progress.
So what does a man’s works have to do with salvation? Nothing if we are talking about being saved from sins. Much if we are talking about Eschatological fulfillment for if one does not participate (which means work) in communion with God then one does not yet have Eschatological Fulfillment.
@608 “I have read the texts in question in their entirety as have a number of specialists in Chrysostom and none of them think he taught sola fide. ” – Falacy of “Appeal to Authority
“Third as for initial justification, there is plenty of support for the notion in his writings for he is quite clear that we increase in the virtue of justice in our co-operating work in justification under the influence of grace.” – Confussion of categories of Sanctification and Justification, Is it is in the Bible that way? No and from what I have read of the Church fathers it is not in their writings yet that I have seen.
“That is uncontroversial in the academic works on John.” Appeal to authority, it tells me nothing about Chrysostom.
“Augustine says as much and we know that Augustine didn’t teach sola fide.”
Do you have some references?
“This is why Chrysostom held to theosis, and speaks of it as a making righteous and not a forensic affair in justification.”
Once again a confussion of categories. By the way Lutherans have a form of Theosis called “The Mystical Union”.
“Jason has foolishly asserted that Catholics do not understand the Reformation doctrine. This is nonsense,”
Well then start representing the Reformation doctrines accurately then I won’t make such assertions.
I enjoyed the video, but it does reveal the critical weakness of the forensic model of salvation. Salvation is not a matter of bypassing the good-o-meter. Salvation must be a real deliverance from the power of sin and death and transformation in the Spirit. If it is not, then I will take my Hell with me wherever I am.
I see that no one has yet really responded to VanPastorMan’s request to discuss the two texts from Galatians and Romans (#602). Unfortunately, I do not read Greek, and I had to give away most of my commentaries when we moved into smaller quarters three years ago. There was a time when I really tried to keep up with Pauline scholarship, particularly on justification, but the exigencies of life have prevented from doing so for several years. I have found that if one doesn’t stay on top of these matters, one’s brain simply forgets what one used to know.
Two things come to mind:
(1) I think it is fair to say that the driving concern behind Paul’s reflections on justification is the incorporation of Gentiles into Israel through faith in Jesus Christ and the consequences of this incorporation for the eucharistic, ascetical, and moral life of the Church. In the judgment of many scholars (Protestant and Catholic), he is not addressing the existential and theological concerns that drove Luther’s exegesis of Galatians and Romans.
(2) There is a difference between the Apostle Paul’s understanding of justification and the Church’s doctrine of justification. We tend to assume that the latter is simply a reiteration of the former, but this is not necessarily the case. On this point I refer folks to Robert Jenson’s discussion of justification in his little book *Unbaptized God*. Jenson, in fact, suggests three related but different loci of “justification”: (1) Paul: How does God establish his righteousness? (2) Augustine/Aquinas: What is the process by which the sinner moves from a state of sin to a state of friendship with God? (3) How do we properly preach the gospel (Luther, Melanchthon).
Steve: ( re: #613)
Being free of mortal sin does not necessarily mean being in a “state of grace”. There are many who live very good lives and are most likely not in a state of mortal sin ( I say most likely because only God knows for sure) Yet these people do not even believe in God let alone Jesus Christ, They would not therefore be in a state of Supernatural Grace ( the life of God within them) Being in the “state of grace” means having the life of God infused within them.
Purgatory is a place of purgation or purifying. It is a furthering of learning our life in AGAPE love. Which cleanses us of all our earthly faults. When we have learned to love perfectly in agape love we then enter the presence of God. If a person has learned how to love perfectly in our earthly life then purgatory is not a necessary requirement. Good works is a sign of our growth in agape love.
peace
NHU
I hesitate to point this out since I don’t have the time for a long drawn-out debate (plus I didn’t watch the video), but Protestantism makes plenty of room for good works, holiness, and inward transformation (hasn’t anyone heard of the Puritans around here?!). We confess quite clearly that our salvation consists partly in the infusion of righteousness which empowers us for Spirit-wrought good works without which we will not be saved, and by which we will be judged on the last Day.
It’s all there in our official documents for anyone who cares about properly representing us to read.
Dear JJS,
Have the Puritans made the official Protestant team? If so, sweet!
On a serious note, would you mind providing a link to the part of the document that you are referring to? That would be a huge help.
Cheers
The Puritans wrote the book, so to speak, on Reformed theology (it’s called the Westminster Confession):
And from the Larger Catechism:
Yes, we differ in the specifics, but it gets tiring to read what amounts to a pretty severe ignorance of what your opponents actually believe. You guys are better than this, aren’t you?
JJS,
Sorry, I read Puritan and thought Quaker. Forgive the mental lapse, its been a crazy week. Thanks for the quotes. I’ll try to spend more time reading the Westminster Confession.
God bless
The context of Galatians 3:11 concerns the “circumcision party” and their attempts to force Gentile men to follow the practice of keeping the Jewish ritual purity laws – i.e. circumcision, keeping kosher, etc.
Paul tells the Galatians that that these ritual purity laws were given by God as a form of corporate penance to the Jewish nation because of their transgressions:
Since the “offspring” has come, the laws added for transgressions no longer have to be kept. And that is why Christians to this day can eat pork and shellfish, and Christian men do not have to be circumcised.
In no way is Paul preaching to the Galatians that Christians are exempt from the moral law that God has revealed to the Jews. Quite the contrary, Paul is preaching that freedom in Christ is freedom from the slavery to sin, and he that sows to the flesh will reap corruption, and he that sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life:
Paul is preaching to the Romans the same gospel he preached to the Galatians:
The good news is that freedom in Christ is freedom from the bondage of sin. The bad news is that the Christian that chooses to sow to the flesh will reap what he sows.
The essence of sola fide is that mere intellectual assent to the “good news” ensures one’s salvation. But sola fide is a false doctrine, since the scriptures teach that to be saved one must be a doer and not a hearer only:
The sheep are the doers of the works of righteousness, the goats are those who have neglected the works of righteousness.
No worries, Brent.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t mind if you never read the Westminster Confession at all. It’s just that the one thing that tarnishes the otherwise stellar academic nature of this site is the constant misrepresentation of Reformed theology, usually with respect to this very issue.
Seems to me that our modern, westernized reading of Scripture, is the problem. ANE societies and cultures (our Biblical culture) think in collectivist rather than individualistic terms, where the concept of “limited good” is foundational to interpreting things Biblical (for more on this and other Apologetic and Anti-Skeptic information see JP Holding at http://www.Tektonics.org) ; hence, the conclusions and interpretations of Protestants and Reformationists, like their more modern day counterparts of all stripes, just get “this very issue” wrong.
I, like you JJS (and I think a poster in here named Jason), am not (yet) a Catholic…but like you I AM A BELIEVER, trying to appreciate the views of the CC. And, I can say, that this website and the input of Bryan Cross and others, have been a tremendous help. Give them time to respond and you will not be dissapointed, I can assure you.
So, I return again today to make this suggestion if you really want to better understand the distinctions in practical theology between Catholics and others. I know that this was helpful to me, and I picked it up from something Bryan had posted somewhere in one of his many rich articles here on C2C; namely, an easy to understand booklet, based on the CC Catechism, titled “I Am Glad You Asked” at: https://www.scborromeo.org/glad.htm
On the matter of the CC view of Justification, I offer the following from that booklet – you can readily see the distinctions between theirs and ours:
As the C2C writers herein know, I am a mere layperson with a hunger for the Truth, and I found this venue and the booklet I mentioned, and combined they are quickening my “journey home” to the Holy Catholic Church. In fact, this weekend, I will attend my first MASS. Grace be to Him,
Paul
Further, I like a resource that a writer herein does not (Perry), about which a very scholarly discussion of these matters can be obtained; namely, Christian Research Institute. The name of the Article is in a 5 Part Series and is titled: WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Five): The Catholic‐Protestant Debate on Justification, by Norman L. Geisler, and Ralph E. MacKenzie, with Elliot Miller (Editor of the Christian Research Journal and long time CRI staff member both under Dr. Walter Martin and now CRI President, Hank Hanegraaff).
Here is the link to the pdf: https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-5.pdf
In hopes that this will help us all better understand these often divissive issues.
Paul
JJS,
Maybe there needs to be a post addressing the WC or parts of it instead of trying to cover it in a thread about John Calvin. Some of us may have read the L’Institutes de la religion chrétien but may be less familiar with the WC. Would you consider yourself in that category when you were a part of Calvary Chapel? Also, I think what you have cited explicitly deals with sanctification. Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Reformed theology hold to a “material” distinction between sanctification and justification? The predestined, forensically atoned by penal substitution aren’t worried about the “good-o-meter” when it’s all said and done. Right? I mean, that would not exclude the possibility of charity motivating good works, but there is nothing substantive about those works that is participatory in their salvation. Am I missing something?
I think it might also be helpful to differentiate between Protestant scholarship and the WC. Even Protestant preaching and the WC. C’est vrai? If so, maybe we could do that regarding Catholic theology as well. Fair enough?
JJS,
If I quoted to my Presbyterian friends your statement that “We confess quite clearly that our salvation consists partly in the infusion of righteousness which empowers us for Spirit-wrought good works without which we will not be saved, and by which we will be judged on the last Day,” they would protest.
Why? Because they would say, “No, we are justified by faith alone and all those justified will also persevere and be saved. Sure, we are sanctified by those Spirit-wrought deeds that come after our justification, but our salvation is never in question once we are justified, so to say that our salvation consists even partly in infusion of righteousness and works isn’t true.”
Do they have a deficient understanding of their (Reformed) faith?
JJS –
Confused at your statement: “We confess quite clearly that our salvation consists partly in the infusion of righteousness.”
RC Sproul in Justification by Faith Alone (p. 36): “The Reformers did not exclude the infusion of grace. However, the issue was the grounds of our justification. For the Reformers the sole grounds are the imputed righteousness of Christ…not the infused righteousness of Christ.”
I dont think Sproul would be comfortable with your statement. If Sproul disagrees with you (I certainly could be wrong with that), then the charge that this site misrepresents Reformed theology does not seem fair.
Part of the problem, Jason [JJS], is that there is a lot of rhetorical punchiness coming from Reformed corners, about (e.g.) how Geneva says “Rest” and Rome says “Work;” about how Geneva’s gospel sounds like great news to tired sinners who know their works can’t amount to a hill of beans, whereas Rome’s gospel does not sound like good news at all, but just more rotten news; about how Reformed theology preserves sola gratia, whereas Catholic theology simply cannot, etc. When you get down to the WCF 13ish brass tacks, though — whether in response to misplaced charges of antinomianism or simply out of a desire for precision — it isn’t obvious how the rhetoric holds up, nor why it should be that when synergistic cooperation is included as an essential element of the salvific process on the Reformed scheme sola gratia isn’t threatened, whereas synergistic cooperation with divine grace a la Catholic theories “amounts to earning salvation by works,” etc. etc.
I’m all for academic respectability and making sure one represents all views fairly and accurately, but I think that the misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Reformed theology you’re decrying is in large part due to precisely this kind of rhetorical flag-waving, and less than you might think to mere Catholic torpidity. Such rhetoric can hardly be taken seriously once all the nuances of Reformed soteriology (on which you’re presently insisting, and have always insisted) are laid out in the light of common day; on the other hand, if Catholics actually take the rhetorical comparisons seriously, and assume that Reformed people seriously believe it, then it’s not mysterious why confusion about the “real,” hard-hitting-works-demanding version of sola fide you describe should set in. This confusion does not result from not listening to Reformed people talk, not necessarily; it seems to me quite possible that it derives from listening to and taking to heart how Reformed people typically represent their position, especially by way of contrast with non-Reformed and Catholic views.
So yeah, agreed, Catholics who engage Reformed people should take care that they’ve studied their sources. But let’s have no more of the ridiculously unsophisticated Catholicism = Arminianism + Salvation by Works business, whether explicitly stated or stated quite as clearly, but just under the surface of the usual “Rest/Work-Great News/Sucky News” comparisons. The Reformed stuff is not very hard to understand. The distinctions are usually pretty obvious, and for the most part you have to be pretty thick not to get what’s being said. A more plausible explanation for widespread Catholic misrepresentation might require a more nuanced explanation, and might require Reformed folks to promote their views a bit more soberly.
Best,
Neal
Maybe it is too soon for me to post this…but from what I can discern, JJS, Jason and others have not taken a look at the rather objective and very scholarly work and definitions of Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Salvation, Faith, as represented in the above referenced 5 Part Series by Geisler, MacKenzie and Miller via the following PDF:
https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-5.pdf
To save us all time, and to clearly state what non-Catholic believers understand about what the Reformers taught, which does arguably raise their positions above those of the Council of Trent and the CC (and which, after a closer reading of this and the other Parts connected to this excellent 5 Part Series causes me to be pursuaded to stay put in my non-denominational Church), observe the following (pages 7-9):
A PROTESTANT CRITIQUE OF TRENT
With all due recognition of the common Augustinian core of salvation by grace, there are some important differences between the Roman Catholic and evangelical Protestant views of justification. Unfortunately, the well‐intentioned but unsuccessful recent statement, “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” lacked precision in these very areas, speaking of a common belief that “we are justified by grace through faith.”33 What it failed to note, however, is what the Reformation was fought over, namely, that Scripture teaches, and Protestants affirm, that we are saved by grace through faith alone (sola fide). Since this was the heart cry of the Reformation, many evangelicals refuse to sign the statement, believing it would betray the Reformation.
The Biblical Basis for Forensic Justification
In order to appreciate the significant contribution of the Reformers it is necessary to examine the biblical background of the term justification. As we will see, there are solid biblical grounds for the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification. The background for the doctrine of forensic justification (as with other New Testament doctrines as well) is found in the Old Testament. Concerning the Hebrew word hitsdiq, usually rendered “justify,” more often than not it is “used in a forensic or legal sense, as meaning, not ʹto make just or righteous,ʹ but ʹto declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law.ʹ”34 George Eldon Ladd notes that “he is righteous who is judged to be in the right (Ex. 23:7; Deut. 25:1); i.e., who in judgment through acquittal thus stands in a right relationship with God.”35 Turning to the New Testament, the Greek verb translated “to justify” is dikaioó. This word is used by Paul in a forensic or legal sense; the sinner is declared to be righteous (cf. Rom. 3‐4). As Anthony Hoekema observes, “The opposite of condemnation, however, is not ʹmaking righteousʹ but ʹdeclaring righteous.ʹ” Therefore, by dikaioó, Paul means the “legal imputation of the righteousness of Christ to the believing sinner.”36 When a person is justified, God pronounces that one acquitted ‐ in advance of the final judgment. Therefore, “the resulting righteousness is not ethical perfection; it is ʹsinlessnessʹ in the sense that God no longer counts a manʹs sin against him (II Cor. 5:19).”37 Thus we find in the New Testament that “justification is the declarative act of God by which, on the basis of the sufficiency of Christʹs atoning death, he pronounces believers to have fulfilled all of the requirements of the law which pertain to them” (emphasis in original).38
The Incompatibility of Grace and Merit
Much criticism of the Catholic view of justification revolves around the concept of merit that was elevated by Trent to the status of infallible dogma. While Catholics wish to remind us that the whole doctrine of merit should be viewed in the context of grace,39 they overlook the fact that Scripture teaches that grace and meritorious works are mutually exclusive (e.g., Rom. 11:6). The New Testament clearly speaks against obtaining salvation (whether justification or sanctification) as a “reward” (i.e., wage) for work done. For the Scriptures insist that gifts cannot be worked for; only wages can (Rom. 4:4‐5). Grace means unmerited favor, and reward based on works is merited. Hence, grace and works are no more coherent than is an unmerited merit!
Eternal Life Is a Gift That Cannot Be Merited
The Council of Trent declared clearly that to “those who work well ʹunto the endʹ [Matt. 10:22], and who trust in God, life eternal is to be proposed, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, ʹand as a recompenseʹ which is…to be faithfully given to their good works and merit.”40 By contrast, the Bible declares clearly and emphatically that “the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 6:23). Further, in direct opposition to the Catholic position, the Bible guarantees eternal life is a present possession of those who believe. Jesus said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever hears my words and believes in the one who sent me has [present tense] eternal life and will not come into condemnation, but is [right now] passed from death to life.” This same truth is repeated over and over in Scripture (e.g., John 3:36; 1 John 5:13).
But according to the Roman Catholic view, one must await a final justification at death to know whether he or she has eternal life and will not see Godʹs condemnation. In the entire Gospel of John only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life ‐ belief (John 3:16, 36; 5:24; 20:31, etc.). If salvation were not by faith alone, then the whole message of John would be deceptive, stating that there is only one condition for salvation when there are two: faith plus works. Indeed, John states explicitly that the only “work” necessary for salvation is to believe (John 6:29). There is simply nothing else to do for our salvation. Jesus did it all (John 19:31). It is true that all who are saved by Godʹs grace through faith (Eph. 2:8‐9) will be rewarded for their works for Christ (1 Cor. 3:11ff.; 2 Cor. 5:10). These rewards for service, however, have nothing to do with whether we will be in heaven, but only have to do with what status we will have there. As Jesus said, some of the saved will reign over ten cities and others over five (Luke 19:17, 19). But all believers will be in His kingdom.
Christians Work from Salvation, Not for It
Put in traditional terms, Catholicism fails to recognize the important difference between working for salvation and working from salvation. We do not work in order to receive salvation; rather, we work because we have already received it. God works salvation in us by justification and we work it out in sanctification (Phil. 2:12‐13). But neither justification nor sanctification can be merited by works; they are given by grace. Despite the fact that the Catholic understanding of salvation does not logically eliminate forensic justification, nevertheless, it does obscure it. For when one fails to make a clear distinction between forensic justification and practical sanctification, then the good works Catholics believe are needed for sanctification tend to obscure the fact that works are not needed for justification. Of course, good works are necessary in the Christian life. But Protestants have solved the problem in a much more biblical and balanced way. They insist that while we are saved by faith alone, nevertheless, the faith that saves us is not alone. It inevitably produces good works. That is, we are saved by faith but for works. Works are not a condition of justification but they are a consequence of it. Thus, someone who is truly saved will manifest good works. If there are no good works present, then there is no reason to believe that true saving faith is present either.
As James said, “Faith without works is dead.” Such faith cannot save. “Can [mere intellectual] faith save him?” Only the kind of faith that produces good works can save. So, we are not saved (i.e., do not receive eternal life) by works, but we are saved by the kind of faith that produces good works.
Preserving the Pure Doctrine of Grace
We conclude by noting that Protestants, following the clear biblical distinction between forensic justification and practical sanctification, make the way of salvation much clearer and preserve the doctrine of grace (which Catholics also claim) in a much purer form. For once believers know they have right standing before God (=are justified) by faith alone apart from works, then their minds are not cluttered with works they must perform in order to know all their sins are forgiven (past, present, and future) and they are on their way to heaven. While Catholicism acknowledges that there is an initial act of justification (which some even admit includes a forensic act), nevertheless, it also maintains that one must work to faithfully avoid mortal sin in order to achieve final justification before God. Thus, works are ultimately necessary for salvation. But this is contrary to the biblical teaching that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone, based on Christ alone. And, despite Catholic protest to the contrary, this is not conducive to the assurance of salvation by which we “know…[we] have eternal life” (1 John 5:13), and by which we are connected to God by His inseparable love (Rom. 8:1, 36‐39).
In His Truth,
Paul
Regarding Reformed rhetoric that misleads and maybe misunderstands, I took a look at one (seeming) example in this post.
Neal, yeah, I think that the exegencies of polemics often take priority over careful analysis. In blogging, that snowball gets rolling pretty quickly, with all sorts of folk caught up in it.
That said, JJS, I would be interested in seeing evidence to the effect that those who write for CTC constantly misrepresent Reformed theology.
Sebron,
There is a distinction between salvation and justification in the Reformed scheme. Salvation is a process inclusive of progressive sanctification, or becoming more inwardly holy over time due to the infusion of righteousness and cooperation with God’s grace. Justification is just one element of this process, whereby the sinner is forgiven of his sins and declared righteous as a gratuitous act of God’s sovereign grace, on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness, but not because of anything holy or righteous about them personally (whether this holiness is generated on their own or whether it is infused or whatever).
Hope that helps,
Neal
Paul, (re: #633)
Let’s look at the material you pasted in:
In no place does Scripture teach that we are justified by “faith alone,” as though repentance, agape, and baptism are unnecessary for justification. I addressed that in “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.”
The term is used in this declarative sense only when the person is already truly righteous. It is never used by God of a person who is at the same time unrighteous.
And God’s judgment is true, not false. In other words, it is no mere external pronouncement, when God is the one declaring it, because when God declares a person to be righteous, it means that the person truly is internally righteousness, since God cannot lie, and God sees into the depths of the human heart.
That is a non sequitur. Just because God declares someone righteous, it does not follow that this declaration is on the basis of a mere forensic imputation. Rather, the declaration is because, by infusion of sanctifying grace, faith, hope, and agape, the person has truly been made righteous, and hence God speaks truthfully when He declares the person righteous.
Only if that person perseveres in the righteousness he has received from God. If he falls away, and dies in mortal sin, the justification he once received is not the verdict he receives on the Day of Judgment.
That conclusion does not follow. It is a question-begging assumption, and it is heretical, because it contradicts the teaching of the Council of Trent.
Catholics and Protestants agree that at the moment of justification, God no longer counts a man’s past sins against him. Those sins are forgiven. But a person cannot be justified who remains in a state of enmity against God, because if God were to forgive his past sins, he remains in a state of separation from God by his present mortal sin.
That’s an interpretation of the Bible, not what the Bible itself teaches. The notion of forensic imputation is a philosophy brought to the text by those interpreting the Bible in that way; it is not taught by Scripture itself. God only imputes (reckons/counts) a person righteous, if that person is truly righteous. The notion of simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously justified and sinner) makes God into a liar.
The Catholic Church didn’t “overlook” that. St. Paul is speaking there (in Rom 11:6) of works done apart from grace and faith. Works done apart from grace, are not meritorious. But that does not mean that works down in grace and faith are not meritorious; such works are meritorious, as can be seen all throughout the New Testament. Jesus said, “And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.” (Mt 10:42) And there are many other verses teaching the same, as the Council of Trent points out.
It speaks against obtaining salvation as a reward or wage for works down by our own effort, apart from grace. (That is the heresy of Pelagianism.) But because we have been freed from sin (no longer a slave to sin) and made slaves to God (living in obedience to God), the result is sanctification (in which we participate, by prayer, receiving the sacraments, resisting temptation, keeping the commandments, and doing what is pleasing in His sight), and our reward for this is “eternal life” (Rom 6:22), in contrast to the wages of sin, which is death (Rom 6:23). Eternal life is both a gift (Rom 6:23) and a reward (Rom 6:22).
A gift cannot be worked for. But a gift can be worked with, leading to reward that is at the same time both gift and reward.
The notion that grace is only unmerited favor is a form of Pelagianism, for the reasons I explained in comment #3 of the “Pelagian Westminster?” thread. (See also St. Thomas, Summa Theologica I-II Q.110 a.1.) Yes, unmerited favor is one sense of the term ‘grace.’ And yes, reward based on works is unmerited. But it does not follow that grace and works “are no more coherent than is unmerited merit.” It is that kind of oversimplistic reasoning that would make the incarnation impossible, since God is not man, and since man is not God, therefore the notion of God becoming man is no more coherent than is God becoming not God.
The wages of sin is death, and the gift of God is eternal life. But that does not exclude genuine merit in a state of grace. Romans 6:23 is fully compatible with the Catholic doctrine.
The mistake on the part of the authors is to assume that “eternal life” as presently possessed by those with living faith is identical to God saying on the Day of Judgment “enter into heaven”. Grace is the seed of glory. We now in this present life already have “eternal life” in that we already have the divine life with us — we are already participants in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). But that does not mean that we already have a guarantee of living forever with God, as though we can never apostatize, or as though now for us the Day of Judgment is a mere formality.
Notice how the authors fail to distinguish between the two senses of ‘eternal life,’ and so end up attacking a straw man that is based on a Protestant presupposition.
In the entire tenth chapter of Luke, only one condition is laid down for obtaining eternal life: keeping the law. (If “in the entire part x” is a good way of doing theology ….)
Jesus is not speaking of dead faith, but of living faith, i.e. faith-informed-by-agape. See “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.”
The authors assert this, but they don’t provide any Scripture for their assertion, because Scripture does not teach it.
All those with faith-informed-by-agape, not ‘believers’ in the sense of those with dead faith.
Actually, the Church fully recognizes that difference. What the authors fail to recognize is that working from salvation can at the same time be working for salvation.
This is the happy-meal conception of rewards. Eternal life is God Himself. So, in this Protestant mentality, God cannot give us Himself as a reward for our works done in grace; He therefore has to give us some created things. Again, the Bible nowhere teaches this.
The authors beg the question by assuming that justification and sanctification are not merely different aspects of one and the same thing, and by conflating initial justification and growth in justification. These are two different paradigms, and it does no good to criticize one paradigm from within the other paradigm. Initial justification cannot be merited. But growth in justification (or growth in sanctification) can be merited, once in a state of grace. This is precisely how it is possible to “work out your salvation in fear and trembling.” If our work did not increase our sanctification, then we could not work out our salvation in fear and trembling. We can work out our salvation in fear and trembling precisely because such work merits an increase in grace, and thus an increase in sanctification/justification.
This again, just begs the question. Works are not meritorious for initial justification (i.e. being transferred from mortal sin into a state of grace), but they are needed for sanctification (i.e. growth in justification) once in a state of grace.
The problem is that Scripture never says we are saved by “faith alone,” let alone that we are justified by faith alone. This is a man-made idea imposed on the Scripture data, and condemned as heresy by the Church at the Coucil of Trent.
This conclusion follows only if we conflate initial justification and growth in justification. If we distinguish between them, then the impossibility of initial justification by works does not exclude growth in justification by works down in grace and agape.
Finally, they acknowledge initial justification — that would have been helpful above, to avoid the straw men.
True.
The only problem is that Scripture never says anywhere that salvation is “through faith alone.” That’s a man-made teaching, which is a heresy according to the Council of Trent.
The assurance we have is not the same as presumption. We know that are connected to God by His love, which He will not separate from us, unless we separate from Him.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Neal,
Your comment confuses me a little. On the one hand, the Reformed position claims that justification (being made righteous) imputes righteousness by God sovereign declaration and on the other hand salvation is “inclusive” of a progressive work of sanctification–becoming more “inwardly holy” which I would assume could be manifest in outward demonstrations of that inward reality.
Do you mean to say that their theology in general is inclusive of sanctification as such and not their concept of salvation? In other words there is on the one hand the reward of heaven (salvation) and on the other Christian living (sanctification) which would compromise how orthodoxy and orthopraxy function within their larger theological schema. This still begs a lot of questions about what this “second work” is and how it happens hence the debates that historically have ensued between the Weslyan, Keswickian, Classical Reformed…understanding of the concept of sanctification. This would be distinct from the Catholic position that sees sanctification as an integral part of the unfolding of justification.
Cheers
Clarification: I was responding to JJS, not the other “Jason,” above. Sorry for the confusion.
Brent, I’m not too sure I understand your questions in the second paragraph. I meant to indicate that “salvation” is a broader category than justification, and that the Reformed include more within salvation than they do in justification specifically. I didn’t mean that no questions can arise about the ordo salutis or what have you once this specification is made, or that all Protestants agree with distinctively Reformed formulations, and I didn’t mean to suggest that Catholic and Reformed thought was identical on these matters. Hope that helps,
Neal
Sebron and Andrew,
I should note too that it isn’t just incautious polemics that can lead to the vaunted “Catholic misrepresentation,” but also sources like the one Paul has been asking Bryan to engage with. To be sure, Geisler ought not be held aloft as the representative “Reformed” theologian (wiser to look to someone like Gerstner, as Andrew does), but still, he’s at least supposed to be representing the “Lutheran/Reformed/Historical Protestant” position on sola fide and much else throughout that co-authored analysis of Catholicism he penned. And look how imprecise he is. “Salvation” and “justification” are repeatedly used interchangeably, as if there were nothing more to “getting saved” than “being declared righteous even though you really aren’t.” (This explains why Sebron read Sproul without the distinction in mind, I’d guess.) We already know this is not uncommon among evangelical PCAers, who are not averse to talk about how they “got saved,” so that now all they have to do is “rest” and bask in their salvation, which is already “accomplished and applied” and so forth. But I think it is also not uncommon for authors who many legitimately look to (and point to!) as being just the kinds of experts Catholics are supposed to learn about Protestantism from to do the same.
Neal
Who, exactly, is this “we” that confesses that “salvation consists partly in the infusion of righteousness which empowers us for Spirit-wrought good works without which we will not be saved”? What is the name of the church that confesses this doctrine?
For whom are these “official documents”? What office, of what church, promulgated these official documents? What authority does this office have for those who are members of the church? How does one become vested with the teaching authority of this office?
Brent,
Yes, but justification and sanctification are two sides of the larger salvation coin, which is why Turretin says that good works are necessary for salvation.
All I want is for people to play fair. It would be unfair of me to say that Catholics believe in working their way to heaven, as I’m sure you would agree. Well, it is equally unfair to say of Protestants that our schema excludes good works and moral transformation.
And again, I didn’t watch the video, so I will not comment on how the “Good-o-Meter” fits into to all this. It’s sort of a silly question anyway.
Again, let’s just play fair. If you guys can cry “foul” when a Protestant cites a Catholic theologian who contradicts the Church’s teaching, then don’t be surprised when we do the same.
Devin,
Probably, as well as having a deficient level of reading comprehension, since they would be (1) objecting to something I did not say, as well as (2) demonstrating an ignorance of what our confessional tradition teaches.
Concerning (1), your friends would be collapsing justification and salvation, which is what Catholics do. My salvation includes my sanctification, and you can read the WCF excerpts I provided above to see what the Reformed have to say about sanctification. Therefore insisting that “our salvation [does not] consist even partly in infusion of righteousness and works” is to say that sanctification is unnecessary, which is the most easily defeatable position ever.
With respect to (2), well, I guess I sort of answered that already!
Neal,
Sure, there’s lots of bad rhetoric from our side, as I have conceded. but I don’t see it hapenning from us here (with the exception of some drive-by posts), and when it does it’s often due to misunderstandings. But you guys are all ex-Reformed people who should know better.
Don’t fight fire with fire, is what I’m saying. Two wrongs don’t make a right. Early to bed, early to rise — never mind….
I have continued to follow the thread after my last post. What I find is that there is a misunderstanding to what justification is. Justification is God declaring a sinner righteous. If I say about this man or woman that they are good people, then I am justifiying them. The real question is how can a sinner who deserves Hell be justified by a Holy and righteous God? I am hearing on here that faith is not enough. James 2 is cited to say that you have to have works or you are not saved. James is not talking about salvation at all when he says Faith without works is dead in verse 20. The word dead in the greek means useless. How is faith without works useless? James 2:14What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? I believe these verses have been misunderstood. The context is helping people who are in need. “Save them” is not talking about salvation but helping those who are in need. The saving is giving food and shelter, and the, “them” are those in need. Faith in Christ is useless in this world if all we do is,say “God bless you”. James is saying feed them, help them then your faith will be useful.
To those of you who reject justification by faith alone apart from works, remember that Paul was very clear on this matter. Ephesians 2: 8For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. I believe anyone who says works are necessary to be justifed before God has believed the false gospel of Galations where Paul said of them, Galatians 5:4 You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.
Always remember this, justification is not you working with God. It is you trusting in the death of Christ solely as the Savior who died for your sin. I know for certain that I am going to Heaven because of what Jesus did, and I have nothing to do saving myself. I can’t add one viable work where God would say, “You are justifed”. If I could then I could boast about it. Paul said we can’t.
To add works to the requirement for salvation and or justification is taking the grace out of the Gospel. John 3:16 says all we have to do is believe to have eternal life. To believe is to put your trust in somebody. We trust in what Christ did on the Cross and not in our good works. The Philippian Jailer was told in Acts 16 that all he had to do was to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and he could be saved. Who on here will contradict Paul? If Paul believed that works are necessary for salvation or justification then wouldn’t he have told the Jailer the truth instead of telling him to simply believe, put his trust in Jesus?
Justification happens in one second when the sinner believes the Gospel. Sanctification is a work of God’s grace upon the believer so that he or she can be made more holy in their lives. Now please don’t misunderstand. To become more holy in your life is not to do anything to merit salvation before God. Holiness should be our aim so that we glorify God in our lives and then we are useful to be used by Him. I guess if I say it more simply it would be that, “Only justifed people can ever hope to become more sanctified”. Don’t put the cart before the horse. Justification has to happen first when a sinner receives Christ as Savior, to then be in a postion to become more holy or become sanctified.
Sebron,
Justification ≠ salvation. Salvation is a bigger category than mere justification (with which Sproul would agree), meaning that appealing to passages—whether in the Bible, in Sproul, or in the WCF—about JBFA to refute what I am saying is to miss the point.
Andrew,
This thread is evidence enough, with people saying things like, “What good is a soteriology that leaves the sinner with no inner transformation? I’d take hell over that!” And this exact critique has been voiced over and over again here at C2C, and it is demonstrably false.
Now, I understand that sometimes this is said about Lutheranism in particular, and not being Lutheran I cannot speak to the fairness of the critique. But it is also said of the Reformed, and I think that the Puritans would have been very surprised to hear that their theology has no place for holiness or the inner life.
JJS,
Sorry, maybe we’re talking past each other. What I identified as “flag waving rhetoric,” which can’t really be taken seriously, is the sort of stuff that R Scott Clark and Mike Horton have said and continue to say, online and on the printed page. My thought was that a Catholic couldn’t be accused of failing to look at reputable Reformed sources if he went to Clark or Horton for his information about Reformed theology as it contrasts with Catholicism, and that it would nevertheless be understandable why such Catholics might walk away with faulty impressions of Reformed theology, given the rhetoric masquerading as dispassionate comparative analyses they’d encountered. Of course there are Reformed folks who say things on this site and on yours that make you cringe, as their are Catholics who say things here and elsewhere that make me cringe. But I meant to be talking about the guys you would presumably want us to read.
Best,
Neal
JJS:
I haven’t read all the comments in this thread, not by a long shot. Are you saying that “drive-by Catholics” have said these things, and therefore “people here at C2C” are saying them? Or are you saying that the authors of posts and articles here at C2C have argued that, according to Reformed theology, God does not work any inner transformation in the individuals He elects to salvation?
I have never argued or said anything like this, and I can’t remember any C2C member having done so either. And look, I beat you to the punch in re Sebron’s question, and said the same thing you did. Does this mean that I “know better” and act on my better knowledge, most of the time at least, whereas other C2C members either don’t know better or do know better but don’t act on their better knowledge? I’m not sure where the foul play is coming from here. If you’re worried that we’ve attributed a wrongful collapse of salvation proper into justification to Reformed/historical Protestant people, how do you suggest that we should manage responding to all that horrid Geisler stuff up there that Paul has posted? Or the Clark/Horton charge (the “Rest/Work”-“Good News/Bad News” argument)? Or Horton’s claim that, according to Catholicism, divine grace is like a “power-bar,” which gives you a little boost, a little help, to accomplish something [salvation] which you could in any case have accomplished without it? Etc.?
Neal
Neal and JJS,
After reading your responses and thinking about this issue more, I think I may call a cease fire by saying that there are two types of ex-Protestants, and for exigency we can call them Geislers and Gerstners. According to the Gerstners, the Geislers are ignorant of the more robust Reformed soteriological model whereby works are necessary for salvation (Turretin, JSS #640) which is closer to the Catholic position. I don’t think it has anything to do with “reading comprehension” which is a rather priggish analysis, but I think we could impugn upon them ignorance of the confessional tradition which may be for invincibly ignorant reasons. I would be interested what reasons Jason would claim before he became Reformed, maybe that could shed light on some of the Catholic reasons.
I think a third option would be that an anabaptist position makes the order salutis irrelevant and thereby conflates justification and salvation. It doesn’t do away with the concept of sanctification, but qua salvation it does. In this way, all little “p” protestants in the anabaptist position (evangelical) share no privilege for speaking within the confessional tradition. They only get the crumbs that fall off the table.
What Catholics have a hard time with is that there are a lot more Geislers running around claiming to speak for Protestants than there are Gerstners. That doesn’t abnegate our responsibility as Catholics to engage the Gerstner position, but rather to be careful to determine which theological milieu we find ourselves in: popular or professional. I will admit, though, that I’m hesitant to call Geisler simply a pop feature. His training and reputation is a little more than that. What maybe the Catholic is left arguing is that the Anabaptists win the protestant argument which would be a different issue than determining who says what.
Through the Immaculate Conception,
Brent
JJS –
You said: “This thread is evidence enough, with people saying things like, “What good is a soteriology that leaves the sinner with no inner transformation? I’d take hell over that!” And this exact critique has been voiced over and over again here at C2C, and it is demonstrably false.”
Since I said such things above, I feel as though I owe you an explanation. My comment was largely based on the video that Bryan embedded into his comment, however this video I feel very accurately depicts what many Reformed Pastors teach regarding salvation (Mark Driscoll, for example). I am a Cradle Catholic and don’t have as much of an understanding of reformed theology as other commenters, but as I understand the reformed doctrine, there *is* a process of sanctification that Christians go through but this sanctification is only optional in a certain sense.
While discussing purgatory my reformed friend (yes, I have only one) I asked him if he believes that you have to be fully sanctified to enter into heaven. He said “yes.” I then followed up and asked if it was possible for a person to die without being fully sanctified, to which he also replied “Yes.” I then pointed out what I thought was pretty obvious; that the areas of the person’s life that had yet to be sanctified needed to be purged from him in order for him to enter heaven, which would mean that some sort of action from Christ (which I understand to be Purgatory) between death and heaven had to exist. My reformed friend, of course, denied this.
So here is what I don’t get. How can Reformed Christians deny Purgatory (not necesserily as a place, but as a post humous saving (sanctifying) act of God which purges the human soul of any remaining evil) and still hold that their Soteriology does not deny the need for interior transformation? In the video (which I really think you need to watch to get where I’m coming from), what happens to that specific man’s interior disposition after Jesus steps on the good-o-meter?
(Feel free to link me to any other comments on this site where you or other reformed participants have demonstrated the falsehoods you feel that many in this thread have been perpetuating)
Thanks,
Deacon Bryan
Brent,
I feel your pain. That’s why people need to look to the actual confessions and catechisms of the Reformed churches to locate what the tradition really teaches (in the same way that the CCC trumps what Raymond Brown or Hans Kung say). That simple practice, I think, would make dialogue much more easy and worthwhile.
PS – I am happy to let this drop, as I only wanted to make that one point and not get drawn into an endless debate about the minutia of soteriology.
It would be nice to hear someone concede that Reformed theology has been misrepresented in this thread, though. But I’ll keep reading this site either way.
JJS (#649),
I thought I just said that as a “non-official” contributor to CTC. The Geislers get it wrong. Arguing whether or not anabaptists/evangelicals win the “Protestants” debate is a totally different question. Anyone who has misrepresented the Reformed position in this thread (me included if I did) sincerely apologize and hope you can overlook our ignorance on this point. We will do the same when the Reformed launch into a tirade about a Catholic position that is not in fact taught by the Church.
The best,
Brent
#640: “All I want is for people to play fair. It would be unfair of me to say that Catholics believe in working their way to heaven, as I’m sure you would agree. Well, it is equally unfair to say of Protestants that our schema excludes good works and moral transformation.”
This is eminently fair. I’m not convinced that any of the major Catholic CtoC players have been guilty of this sin of misrepresenting the confessional Reformed position, but I agree that the Reformed are well in their rights to protest Catholic accusations that they not provide an essential role for good works and moral transformation. That being said, perhaps we might now return to the real issues. A few thoughts:
Catholic reflection on justification over the past fifty years has been largely focused on Luther and confessional Lutheranism. As noted in vol. VII of the U.S. Lutheran/Catholic dialogue, Lutherans typically think about justification with a model of eschatological simultaneity (the believer is totally justified, even while remaining totally sinful). If you want to see a good example of this model, read the various writings of Gerhard Forde. Catholics, on the other hand, think about justification within a model of graced transformation. Aquinas is the classic example of the Catholic model. The interesting ecumenical question is whether the concerns of each tradition can be addressed by the respective models. The authors of the Joint Declaration concluded that while differences and concerns remain, they need not be judged church-dividing.
Catholic ecumenical dialogue has not really engaged the various Reformed expressions of justification. This is unfortunate, because, like Catholics, the Reformed also tend to think of justification within a transformation model of salvation. In some ways, though not all ways, the Reformed understanding of justification is closer to the Catholic than the Lutheran understanding. I believe that this would be an interesting subject for discussion. Possible talking points:
(1) What is the relation between justification, union with Christ, and regeneration in the Spirit? In some Reformed construals, union with Christ logically precedes justification. I believe this may be the case, e.g., in John Calvin, Richard Hooker, and John Knox. This approach draws very close to the Catholic understanding.
(2) What is the role of the Sacrament of Holy Baptism within the order of salvation? In my judgment, it is precisely here where the Catholic and Reformed traditions depart dramatically. Can the Reformed, do the Reformed, assert that Holy Baptism justifies and regenerates? I find a lot of equivocation on this point in Reformed reflection. This is also a point of difference between the Lutheran and Reformed traditions. Fr Kimel speculation: the Reformed are reluctant to affirm baptismal regeneration because it runs up against Reformed doctrines of predestination and perseverance of the saints.
(3) What is the real function of imputation within the Reformed model of justification? We aren’t just debating biblical and scholastic nuances. Fr Kimel speculation: imputation is important for the Reformed (and the Lutheran) tradition because it makes possible a robust assurance, indeed certainty, of salvation: this certainty is not possible, nor deemed desirable, within more traditional catholic construals of justification and theosis. But given that the Reformed, unlike the Lutherans, believe that we can know not only that we are saved (present tense) but will be saved (future tense), the separation between the catholic and Reformed traditions becomes chasmal (see Philip Cary’s article “Why Luther is not Quite Protestant”).
(4) What is the real function of merit within the Catholic formulation of justification? Merit gets a lot more press here on CtoC than it does in the Catholic pulpit today, and there’s a good reason for this: it’s almost impossible to employ the language of merit without seeming to suggest that we can earn our salvation by our good works. All the necessary scholastic nuances simply do not translate well into preaching. But as we read in the Joint Declaration on Justification: “When Catholics affirm the ‘meritorious’ character of good works, they wish to say that, according to the biblical witness, a reward in heaven is promised to these works. Their intention is to emphasize the responsibility of persons for their actions, not to contest the character of those works as gifts, or far less to deny that justification always remains the unmerited gift of grace.” Hans Urs von Balthasar has suggested the “merit” can be replaced in Catholic reflection by the word “fruitfulness.” Fruitfulness is preachable, merit ain’t. This opens up real possibilities for ecumenical discussion.
Deacon Bryan,
Thanks for the explanation, but it perfectly proves my point. Mark Driscoll is not Reformed in any sense of the term. Sure, he may believe a few of the points of Calvinism, but I believe in a few points of the CCC, and I am not a Catholic last I checked.
But again, I understand how confusing it all must be to a cradle Catholic (because of how confusing Catholicism is to me as a long-time Protestant). This is why we need to critique our opponents’ theologies by using the documents that they themselves confess. Feel free to critique individuals like Driscoll or Sproul all you want, but do so understanding that no Reformed minister has vowed submission to their private opinions.
JJS –
Agreed. Could you please point me to applicable material (soteriology and sanctification) in any Reformed confessions? It would be appreciated.
https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Thanks JJS. I read the section on sanctification and have some questions, but here is probably not the place and due to time constraints, now is not the right time for me. I hope that we will soon be able to discuss them.
Blessings,
Deacon Bryan
Fr. Kimel, (#653)
Regarding merit, I agree that merit gets more attention here (i.e. at CTC) than in the US Catholic pulpit of today, but part of the reason is because the issue of merit is brought up here with some frequency by Protestant critics, quite the way it was brought up a few comments above. But respectfully, I don’t agree that the dogma of merit (cf. canons 26, 31 and 32 of Trent 6) isn’t preachable, because I have heard it preached very well in some Catholic pulpits here in St. Louis, and I have found it in Patristic homilies. This morning at mass, for example, the priest preached about it in relation to the scribe’s reply to Jesus, when the scribe said:
The priest explained why and how one act of love for God is worth more than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices that were offered weekly at the temple. The reason, he said, is the merit due to one act of love for God, the same way in which Christ gave Himself on the cross to the Father, in love, and so merited the grace of our salvation. The priest quoted Thérèse of Lisieux (and I’m paraphrasing) that if one is sewing a cloth out of love for Christ, then even one stitch of the needle, done out of love for Christ, is worth more than martyrdom and sacrifice and treasure of the whole world, not done out of love. It preached. It sounded like 1 Cor 13, but it was at the same time Trent 6.16.
According to Jesus, thinking about our heavenly reward for being persecuted on His account is to be for us now a source of great rejoicing. (Mt. 5:12) This motif of merit and reward is all throughout Christ’s teachings, say, for example, Mt. 25, where Jesus shows that heaven and hell are given as rewards for (among other things) the way we treat others. And of course we know what Jesus said about giving even a cup of water in His name, namely, that that person “shall not lose his reward.” (Mk 9:40, cf. Mt 19:29, Luke 6:38). The Holy Spirit, through St. Paul, teaches that God “will render to every man according to his works” (Rom 2:6) and that “every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.” (1 Cor 3:8) See also Col 3:24, Hebrews 10:35, 11:6. St. Paul writes in 2 Tim 4:8 of the “crown of justice, which the Lord, the just Judge, will render,” indicating that the eternal reward is not only a gift, but also a just recompense for St. Paul’s labors in grace, which is Christ working in and through Him. St. Paul didn’t just talk about running for fruitfulness; he talked about running the race and fighting the good fight, and thereby “laying up” [cf. Matthew 6:20] the crown of justice which the Lord, the just Judge, will award to him on that Day (2 Tim 4:8) This dogma of meriting a supernatural reward is something found throughout the New Testament, and in the Church Fathers. It seems to me that only in a context in which there is no persecution or suffering for the sake of Christ, could anyone float the idea of replacing merit with fruitfulness. Such a thesis seems so humble, in denigrating our good works, but denying merit denigrates the work of Christ, by failing to make our works and sacrifices done in grace and love pleasing to the Father and worthy of heaven. (Such a notion is the opposite of humility, because pride seeks to impose egalitarianism, which is uncatholic in that it is contrary to the cult of the saints, wherein we recognize those who are greater than ourselves. It is Protestant, but it is not Catholic.)
So I don’t think it is fair to say that there are “necessary scholastic nuances” to the Catholic dogma of merit, if by “necessary” one means that in order to preach about merit and reward, one must include some scholastic nuances in order to teach it. Not only the New Testament authors, but the Church Fathers as well seemed to do just fine with ‘merit’ and ‘reward’ and the dogma as it is taught both in Scripture, at the Second Council of Orange, and in Trent 6:16, and canons 26, 31, and 32 (which contain no scholastic nuance). Only if some scholastic nuance were necessary in order to preach this dogma, would the dogma be more difficult to preach; but I see no reason to believe the antecedent of that condition.
The simple and preachable way of explaining merit is that acts done out of love for Christ, in union with Christ merit a heavenly reward, because they come from the grace merited by His work, and are ordered to the Father by love for Him. Inasmuch as we are joined to Christ, our good works done in grace and love are exceedingly pleasing to the Father because they are Christ’s work, and Christ’s work is exceedingly pleasing to the Father. Hence our good works done in grace and love merit a heavenly reward, just as Christ’s supreme act of love merited a heavenly reward from the Father. By contrast, acts done apart from grace, and apart from love for God, and apart from union with Christ, are not meritorious of a heavenly reward. Not only is that preachable, that is something that all Catholics need to hear in the preaching they regularly receive, because it completely affects our spiritual life. God knows that we need to know now that we are (or can be) storing up heavenly rewards; otherwise, He wouldn’t have told us about them.
There are quite a few Catholic dogmas that are only rarely mentioned in Catholic pulpits in the US today, and the reason for that isn’t necessarily that those dogmas aren’t preachable; in my experience it typically has to do with the training of the persons giving the homilies, and/or where the congregation is as a result of such training.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
If God declares the sinner righteous, is the sinner actually righteous? Specifically, after God justifies the sinner, is the sinner freed from the bondage to sin? Or is the justified sinner left unchanged in regards to being the slave to the flesh that he was before he was justified?
Thank you Bryan for your typically well considered and thorough reply #636 to my post #633.
I continue trying to sort out your findings and claims of errancy, etc. in what Dr. Norman Geisler, Ralph E. MacKenzie and Elliot Miller have written in their article…but that is no easy task. I prefer going to the source and having them defend their positions…and hopefully I will get there and be able to provide further input in direct response as, again, I am merely a layperson in this Forum.
In the meantime, here are the links to all 5 Parts of that Series that, in all fairness, should be considered if one wants a most thorough understanding of the non-C positions:
“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part One): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism” by Kenneth R. Samples https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-1.pdf
“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Two): An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism” by Kenneth R. Samples
https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-2.pdf
“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Three): The Catholic‐Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority” by Norman L. Geisler, and Ralph E. MacKenzie, https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-3.pdf
“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Four): The Catholic‐Protestant Debate on Papal Infallibility” by Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-4.pdf
“WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? (Part Five): The Catholic‐Protestant Debate on Justification” by Norman L. Geisler, and Ralph E. MacKenzie, with Elliot Miller https://www.equip.org/PDF/DC170-5.pdf
And…to the above I would add the following basic beliefs which I trust we all share…and/but if we do not then that is where the real problem lies (please address these in any reply posts herein):
One is not saved from the righteous wrath of God against unrepentant sinners by believing in sola fide, by assenting to forensic justification and imputed righteousness; one is saved by believing in—by trusting in—the one true Lord Jesus Christ. That’s it. The apostle Paul wrote,
“If you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, ‘Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.’” (Rom 10:9–10). “For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.” (Eph 2:8–10)
These matters of “debate” here in C2C, though they are important, should not rob believers of their assurance of Christ’s love and redemption. Again, that is why we should perhaps all focus on C.S. Lewis’s “mere Christianity.”
The primary, central question for each and every one of us is, “what are you going to do with Jesus Christ?” In Him, and only in Him, will we find meaningful answers and resolution to all such matters.
So, I do continue to be engaged, albeit at a distance from your C2C writers, because I am wrestling with which road to take…and possibly, that there is no fork in that road but simply a fast lane and a slower lane all going to the same place; hence, no real need to “wrestle”. I prefer this view…but I keep pushing and pursuing the more “correct” “lane” to travel in this life. I know that Geisler & MacKenzie as much say the same; namely, that “the CC IS a true church, but with error in it.” Maybe, as I am sure you might reply, C2C so termed “ex-Protestant Geisler’s” “church” is a true church with error in it…but I suspect you would not be that “liberal”, for lack of a better word. You have, in fact, used words something like heretical and non-Biblical, etc.
One problem I do have is with suggestions (as some in here at C2C have done) that somehow Dr. Geisler is not sufficiently “qualified” or not scholarly enough (vs. Gertsner) to be taken seriously or to comment on such matters of the faith and the CC vs. Protestantism, evangelicalism, non-denominationalism, et al…but that simply flies in the face of the facts. Let us have no part in that!
While continuing my search to know “The Truth”, and regarding matters of what Church is the more “right church”…I note the following recent article from Dr. Geisler’s website. Indeed, one has to ask why believers are moving away from, and not towards, the CC? For obvious reason, I know that I do ask and seek an answer for as well! Maybe this article will shed some light that can be helpful to the overall journey in which we find ourselves. I certainly hope so.
Link: https://normangeisler.net/public_html/whycatholicsleave.html
Paul
JJS wote:
I find this ironic because I once used the WCF statement on Sanctification to ask why it wasn’t true that works play an instrumental role in an individual’s salvation. After all the statement that “and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord,” sure looks like it is saying that “no man shall see the Lord” without “the practice of true holiness.”
The response I got always returned to justification. I wrote at the time:
I remember John Bugay hyperbolically explaining that once we are justified, our lives really amounted to “running out the clock.” One Presbyterian lady wanted to know why I wasn’t getting a response to why under the WCF anyone could deny that works play an instrumental role in salvation.
I felt like I was in the Wizard of Oz, and everyone was saying “pay no attention to that sanctifiication behind the curtain.”
Having read N.T. Wright’s recent book on Justification, entitled succinctly “Justification,” I had a better understanding of my experience when I read Wright’s description of the role that justification plays for sola fide Protestants by comparing their attitude to someone who reduces all other elements of an automobile to being a part of the steering wheel.
So, if the role that sola fide Protestants give to works in their organizational texts gets ignored, that may have something to do with way that sola fide Protestants ignore sanctification as a practical matter by effectively making sanctification a subset of justification.
I felt that was really a shame, because I was interested in getting an answer to my question about the relationship of sanctification to salvation in the Reformed system of belief.
Neal,
You know, I didn’t think of Horton and Clark and the quasi-Lutheran, anti-FV movement (Lake Woebegone Calvinists). When I think bona fide Reformed, I think Puritan, Turretin, Calvin, and maybe, on a sunny day, the Old Princeton folks (I was an OPC man). Never liked the Dutch (all due respect to Alvin Plantinga). Baxter’s Saints Everlasting Rest remains a favorite. Geisler, whom Calvinists love and respect about as much as they do Rob Bell, was my seminary prof. His book on Aquinas merited a Foreward by Ralph McInerny. However, Stormin’ Norman was never known for subtlety when he set out to disagree with someone. Thus, the ham-handed stuff in the “Differences” section of Evangelicals and Catholics.
JJS,
Okay. Your comment sounded like an indictment of the folks listed under “Who Writes.” Maybe we haven’t sufficiently policed this thread, so to promptly correct the “salvation = justification” mistake. By “constantly” I thought you meant since February 2009, every third post or so.
JJS,
Thanks for the link. I think real dialogue requires both parties ernestly reading each other’s documents. I think “Sanctification” and “Assurance of Grace and Salvation” have an important relationship. It is very easy to say, “I believe works are necessary for salvation”. I can even link to an official document from the Church of Brent to that effect. See, we believe it! However, it is totally different to be able to claim that the concept actually works within the broader paradigm.
Reading comprehension is important, but also the ability to synthesize multiple texts is equally important-which I’m certain you have a robust ability to do. Maybe the Geislers get to “Of Assurance of Grace and Salvation” and get a little confused. On the one hand, there is a concept of salvation that virtually includes in it works qua sanctification as a part of the two-headed coin of salvation. And the beginning of this section “hypocrites and other regenerate” seems to motion in that direction. However, paragraphs three and four leave me heading to my local evangelical congregation. If a true believer may lose their “assurance” by (1) negligence, (2) sin, (3) temptation and (4) God’s withdrawal of “the light” yet they are never so utterly destitute that it cannot be “revived” (knowledge of the assurance) but were always in possession of it (assurance) as “supported from utter despair”, my reading level leads me to conclude that “the elect” preserve salvation despite their works. I coordinate remedial reading instruction as my day job, so I’m willing to take my own medicine here if need be.
The Reformed guy jumps up shouting, “But you need works!”. The Geislers laugh and say, “We don’t need them at all. All we need is faith and the right use of reason considering the promises of God will give us infallible assurance of salvation (para 3)! We are going to do good works, but not for salvation’s purpose but rather as a response to being given salvation. It’s kind of like being at a stop light and saying the light turned green because I turned my turn signal on versus I turned my turn signal on because the light turned green. You reformed folks get it wrong on this point. Us evangelicals get it right because we were willing to throw off the last bit of Romish dogma: works.”
Maybe I’m just re-stating what Fr. Kimel said at #653 (the “P” in TULIP is the fulcrum whereby the whole Calvinistic machine breaks and is unable to even lift a small box to heaven). However, I’m willing to concede that the Reformed camp are being more Biblical than the evangelical, but I’m just not so certain the confessional documents make it clear. Question 81 in the Larger catechism does’t help me either. If it’s in the confessional documents somewhere, I’m sure you can point me in the right direction.
I hope this hasn’t come across as polemic, but just an honest attempt of thinking through these issues. I’m not a cradle Catholic by a long shot, so please don’t think this is all protestantese to me.
Peace to you on your journey,
Brent
Andrew,
I hear you, and am like-minded. That is, I myself would not select Clark and Horton as the best and most able representatives of Reformed Theology. (Dig the Woebegone reference!) But I think JJS would think of them as the right sorts of folk to go to in order to be taught what “Confessional Reformed Theology” is about (not exclusive of going to the Puritans or the WCF). But whatevs. Fr Kimel is right that this little side-discussion has side-tracked. I disagree with JJS that the authors of this site consistently misrepresent Reformed theology (as understood by the guardians of confessionalism, or in any other sense), and reject his chastening (“you should know better”) of us; I tire of remarks like these, and I suppose I didn’t feel like letting them go this time. To the extent there is massive misunderstanding and misrepresentation on the part of otherwise seemingly intelligent and informed Catholics, I’m going to place a whole lot of the blame on people like Clark and Horton, who should know better. But again, whatevs. I’m out. Going to play football now.
Neal
Sooners versus Longhorns on an April morning. I am going to start reading Horton’s Covenant and Salvation. Yes, that is how I roll on Saturday. Black coffee, nicotine, and theology. I bet that I will enjoy this more than Future Grace, or Love Wins. (Neither or which were all that bad. Except when they were. Now if those guys could just kiss and make up.) After that, its on to some of Fr Kimel’s recommended reading on Justification (#590, above). Speaking of, Fr. Kimel, did you ever come across Fr. Pfurnter’s little book, Luther and Aquinas on Salvation? Good stuff. Does that make me a Lake Woebegone Catholic? Only if I drink up all your beer while huddled around a hole in the ice.
Paul, (re: #661)
You wrote:
Of course I agree that one is not saved by “believing in sola fide” or by “assenting to forensic justification and imputed righteousness.” We are saved by faith in Christ. But, the kind of faith by which we are saved is not mere intellectual assent, nor is it mere trust without love or without repentance or without obedience or without sacraments or without communion with Christ’s Church and those whom He has authorized to shepherd His Church. In this usage (as St. Paul is using the term here) faith in Christ is a very ‘thick’ term, and it is contrasted with the system of the Mosaic law that includes circumcision and the animal sacrifices. What St. Paul says in the two passages you cited does not contradict what Christ says about the necessity of baptism, when Christ says: “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved” (Mk 16:16), and “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5) It does not contradict what St. Paul says when he writes, “for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law will be justified.” (Rom 2:13) It does not make the Church unnecessary — this is why he says, “it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved” because that confession takes place in and before the Church, as the catechumen is being baptized, and received into the Church. The hermeneutical mistake would be to read those verses you cited (Rom 10:9-10, Eph 2:8-10), and conclude that faith is something entirely subjective, belief in who Christ is and what He has done, and that such belief is entirely sufficient for salvation. This is the ‘sola fide’ that James condemns in James 2, when he points out that even the demons believe, and that a man is not justified by “faith alone.” (James 2:24) Moreover, faith is not merely “believing in Jesus.” Even the Arians did that. Faith means believing also what Christ revealed, and that includes the truths of the Creed, which includes the line, “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” A person who changes the meaning of that line (from a visible body to an invisible body), has departed in that respect from the faith contained in the Creed.
Christ loves every person, and has died for the sins of every person. So no one should be ‘robbed’ of assurance that Christ loves him and died for him. But, if a person comes to see that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and yet he refuses to enter it, then he has no basis for assurance that he is in a state of grace, just as a person who comes to believe in Christ, and knows that Christ commanded everyone to be baptized, but refuses to be baptized, has no basis for assurance that he is in a state of grace. We cannot love Jesus and despise His Church, for the same reason we cannot love Jesus and despise His Apostles. Jesus said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16) To love Jesus is to love His Church. See “Church and Jesus are Inseparable, says Pope Benedict.” Some sins are mortal sins, and others are venial. (For a brief explanation of the difference between them, see comment #58 here.) For the person who knows about baptism and the Church, and refuses to receive baptism or enter the Church, this is a mortal sin. Repentance for such sins means seeking baptism, and seeking to be received into the Church.
If we love Christ, and we know He founded a Church, we will love the Church He founded (concerning which He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against it), seek to enter it and build it up, and submit to the one to whom Christ has entrusted the keys of the Kingdom. To reject those whom Christ has authorized, is to reject Christ. To submit to Christ, is to submit to the ecclesial authority Christ established. Of course heretical and schismatic sects do not think this is important. They believe that one can have Jesus while (in fact) rejecting His Church and rebelling against the authorities He appointed over His Church. But that is false teaching. One cannot love the Father while rejecting the Son sent by the Father. Likewise, one cannot love the Son while rejecting those whom the Son authorized and sent to speak in His Name and with His authority.
I have addressed that in “Unity and ‘Mere Christianity’.”
That’s a form of gnosticism that abstracts Jesus from the Church He founded, and from the sacraments He instituted in His Church. We cannot embrace Jesus and despise His Body, the Church; we cannot say we love Jesus, while despising the sacraments He instituted. This is why Jesus and the Church are inseparable.
What they are calling “error” are teachings that do not agree with their own interpretation of Scripture. But, throughout the history of the Church, it has never been that the teaching of the Church is measured by the standard of the personal interpretations made by those outside the Church; rather, the teaching of the Church has always been the standard by which the claims of those outside the Church are measured.
If the term ‘heresy’ is to have any objective and authoritative sense, then it cannot mean merely “contrary to my interpretation of Scripture, and to that of those who agree with me.” Heresy has always meant contrary to the belief and teaching of the Church.
I agree, and I have never said anything about him as a person or about his qualifications.
The primary reason why Catholics leave the Church is that they are poorly catechized, whereas those coming into the Church from Protestantism tend to be persons who have investigated the doctrines, traditions and history of the Church. That’s usually about 150,000 persons each year in the US going through the RCIA program to be received into full communion with the Catholic Church, persons like Bryan Kemper, who on Thursday just announced his decision to seek full communion with the Catholic Church. But looking at numbers alone is not the way to determine whether the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, just as pointing to the fact that people were leaving the Church in 1 John 2:19 (“they went out from us, but they were not really of us”) doesn’t show that the Apostle John was not in the Church Christ founded. You have to look at the evidence, and trace the Church Christ founded from the first century, down to the present day.
In the link you provided at the end of your comment, Dr. Geisler refers the reader to the book he co-wrote with Joshua Betancourt titled Is Rome the True Church?. What he doesn’t say is that Joshua has since become Catholic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Update: On the concept of “mere Christianity” see also Joe Heschmeyer’s “Can All Christians Agree to a “Mere Christianity”?“
JJS,
Regarding the video that I posted above (in #611), I first discovered it on the well-known Reformed website titled “Reformation Theology,” which was putting it forward not as a parody, but as a helpful way of depicting the Reformed position. (See their post from July 6, 2009.)
What does Michael Horton say about grace as transformative? He writes:
On that same page Horton has a cartoon of a man sweating and trembling, holding a sign that says ‘Sin!’. The man is standing in the shadow of the cross, with an arrow showing that from “God’s View”, the man is hidden, because the man is standing behind the cross. Here’s the cartoon:
Horton writes [approvingly,] “Luther’s greatest frustration was reading and hearing calls to holy living.” (p. 177)
So often we hear Reformed Christians say not only that working at sanctification is not actually necessary for salvation, but can even indicate that one has not understood “the gospel.” I heard this quite frequently as a Reformed Christian. Horton writes earlier in the same book:
In other words, when we try to improve our holiness, we are adding to God’s perfect remedy (i.e. the imputed righteousness of Christ), and possibly thereby incurring God’s wrath (try not to notice the contradiction), the wrath that comes from the law (Rom 4:15), including laws such as “you must pursue sanctification.” Nothing else is necessary. It is all done, so we may now live in gratitude. We are under no law of obligation to pursue sanctification, because that would imply a denial of the sufficiency of the finished work of Christ, and import an imperative into the gospel. No, it is all done, completely done. We need only rest on the finished work of Christ by faith, and let gratitude alone be our response, not labor to improve our salvation as if Christ didn’t do enough for us by dying on the cross, and giving us His own perfect righteousness. In the same book Horton writes,
If sanctification is partly due to our efforts, and sanctification is necessary for salvation, then according to Horton, that is a denial of “to God alone be the glory.” It makes salvation into a “product of humans and God.” The person holding a synergistic conception of sanctification (or the notion that synergistic sanctification is required for salvation) is, according to Horton, at the risk of incurring God’s wrath, by denying the monergistic gospel that Christ did it all (I mean “it all“), and that man cannot in any way save himself. For Horton, there is not a single act we can do to contribute to our salvation; all our righteousness is as filthy rags, including any effort we might make at sanctification. And to try to contribute to our salvation by our own strivings, is to fall into the Pelagianism of salvation by works.
Perhaps we don’t understand Reformed theology, or understand it sufficiently, but it seems to me that if Horton is not teaching Reformed theology, then your criticisms should be of Horton.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew,
It’s tough when the lone longhorn is also now a sooner. Much confusion and conflictedness results. I have no idea what to do during the Red River Shootout anymore.
Unrelated: Wear something blue today for National Autism Awareness Day, and send up an Ave for my autistic son, my oldest son whom I love, who will be celebrating his first Eucharist on the second Sunday of Easter. The Catholic Church: the original No Child Left Behind movement.
Neal
Bryan,
It seems to me that Horton-esque homiletics — according to which one must at all costs avoid “exemplarism,” or preaching through/about the holy lives of various persons in the Scriptures, with the aim of getting the flock to imitate those persons in their own holy living — is one part a consequence of the theology he endorses, and one part a fairly typical modernist rejection of moral epistemology a la virtue theory. I remember a while ago when the whole package — the anti-transformationalism writ small in the soteriology, and writ large in 2K thinking (Plato’s Republic-style), the anti-exemplarism, the voluntarism, etc. etc. — all came together in a nicely coherent, and very saddening bundle. I guess the controlling idea is that soli deo gloria demands all these things, as though God glorifies Himself only to the extent that He ensures that nobody else’s actions, choices, or creations, ever count for anything at all.
Neal
Bryan, in your #667 response to my recent post of #667…I really must ask that you observe the distinctions between RCC beliefs and those of Protestans (and kind of et al who are professed believers in Christ) with a bit more deference than you ever appear willing or perhaps are able to do.
I take issue with your somewhat demeaning characteriazation of what I and Protestants mean by the word “faith”. And I think you must know better. But, you see, that gets back to the same kinds of “complaints” seen in the back and forth in here about parties either not properly understanding or properly representing the positions of others.
I return to Dr. Geisler, and a Michael A. Field, who wrote the following article. In other credible references and cites that I have made, little deference have been given them. Please, and again in this cite in particular, READ the article and then let’s try to take this discussion from there forward, because unless we can agree to disagree that perhaps the RCC/CC/C are not all they boast about being, we’ll truly get nowhere here or outside of these hallowed halls of CC ecclesiology and theology.
But Wait!
Mind you, I remain open to learning but you must also, and “you” (c2c) must stop taking unwarranted pot shots at arguably equal if not better theological scholars from the so-referenced “dark-side” of belief. Some of the very best minds, and greatest devout believers see it as do those from that so-called heretical side, despite “defections” by persons like Betancourt and Beckwith, who we are yet to hear a lot of detail from as to exactly why they moved back into the RCC (admitedly they may exist, but I have not see those explanations yet, and I am not sure that if I did it would in any affect the considered positions and views of those like Dr. Geisler or the following article author).
The name of the 2007 Article is: “Is the Roman Catholic Church the Only Church of Christ”
The Link is: https://www.normangeisler.net/The Only Church_9 3.pdf
It is important for c2c writers and observers to read this as it lays out the facts that show that much of what you have written here in c2c is just not accurate when it comes to matters of the CC being (The) “His Church”; Apostolic Succession; Papacy; Sacraments; Works salvation; Confession; Justification; Faith; et al of the CC .
Now, and as you well know, no one document can do all of this justice, but it does accurately undermine your claims of superior, ultimate Authority, of the RCC … going right back to the very same Fathers of the Church of the 1st Century, even aspects of the great Augustine, that do not agree with what the RCC has done or become surrounding such issues.
Because I want to learn and help others to also….AND…for all of us to act more loving and helpful in being as He wants us to be, I offer some added perspectives of some of my beliefs that I believe He has helped me to learn these past 7+ years of rather intense personal study as I have rather dogedly been seeking Him and His Truth, with some added input from CRI. BUT…please concentrate more or primarily on the contents of the Field article as they seriously undermine your claims for the CC, and so much of its distinctives from other “churches” of Christ that the CC posits, as do you, as being “schismatics” and heretical …. or, in more rarely seen gentle expressions such as lacking interpretive hermenutics or sufficient scholarly accumen. Geisler and MacKenzie, at least, are more gracious and correct in what they conclude about the CC (see below).
The way Geisler and MacKenzie deal with the question, “Is Roman Catholicism (since Trent) a false church with significant truth in it, as the Reformers believed, or is it a true church with significant error in it?” They conclude it’s the latter.
They point out that “since ‘a true church’ must proclaim the ‘true gospel’ (Gal. 1:8; 2:4), the answer will depend on what is essential to the true gospel.” As part of their discussion, they rightly distinguish between “what is essential to the gospel itself” and “what is essential for people to believe about the gospel in order to be saved.” They contend that “Trent demanded that meritorious works are a necessary condition for receiving the gift of eternal life (=entering heaven). Thus, while affirming the necessity of grace, Catholicism denies the exclusivity of grace as a condition for receiving the gift of eternal life. This, in the eyes of historic Protestantism, is a false gospel.” But, then, they insightfully recognize, “Whether this assessment is correct depends on whether the classical or Reformation standard is employed as the minimal test for orthodoxy.” They favor the classical standard because “it is not anachronistic or exclusivistic, and is more in accord with the broad sweep of church history.” (p.502)
Again, we are not saved by believing in the doctrine of forensic justification; we are saved by believing in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Concerning the relationship between faith and works in our salvation, we think it is obvious in Scripture that our own individual human works do not merit grace—our works cannot in any way obligate God to save us. Romans 4 could not be clearer:
1 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? 2 If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. 3 What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”[a]
4 Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. 5 However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. 6 David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:
7 “Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.”[b]
9 Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness. 10 Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before? It was not after, but before! 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them. 12 And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.
13 It was not through law that Abraham and his offspring received the promise that he would be heir of the world, but through the righteousness that comes by faith. 14 For if those who live by law are heirs, faith has no value and the promise is worthless, 15 because law brings wrath. And where there is no law there is no transgression.
16 Therefore, the promise comes by faith, so that it may be by grace and may be guaranteed to all Abraham’s offspring—not only to those who are of the law but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham. He is the father of us all. 17 As it is written: “I have made you a father of many nations.”[c] He is our father in the sight of God, in whom he believed—the God who gives life to the dead and calls things that are not as though they were.
18 Against all hope, Abraham in hope believed and so became the father of many nations, just as it had been said to him, “So shall your offspring be.”[d] 19 Without weakening in his faith, he faced the fact that his body was as good as dead—since he was about a hundred years old—and that Sarah’s womb was also dead. 20 Yet he did not waver through unbelief regarding the promise of God, but was strengthened in his faith and gave glory to God, 21 being fully persuaded that God had power to do what he had promised. 22 This is why “it was credited to him as righteousness.” 23 The words “it was credited to him” were written not for him alone, 24 but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead. 25 He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification.
I agree that all Scripture needs to be interpreted. Even so, in light of such passages, we do not see how salvation could be in any way a function of our own individual works. Romans 2, James 2, and any other passage that seems to teach otherwise are more easily interpreted in light of these clear teachings than the other way round.
Paul
Let’s try again with the Field article link: https://www.normangeisler.net/The%20Only%20Church_9%203.pdf
And, a correction at the top of my last post should instead read as follows: Bryan, in your #667 response to my recent post of #661…
Neal, done. The Cathedral had Our Lady of the Seven Swords standing up front. She was wearing a blue mantel. Word.
Paul, (re: #671)
You wrote:
I don’t think I made any claim about what you mean by the word ‘faith.’ You claimed we are saved by faith in Christ, and I agreed with that, but was merely pointing out that what that means depends on what all is packed into the concept associated with the term ‘faith.’
I’ve read this material. And I’ve spent many hours dialoguing with Mike Field. Is there anything in this material that you would like us to address? As I said to you earlier in this thread, it is best only to address one question/subject at a time, not throw dozens of questions/objections at each other at a time.
I haven’t taken any “pot shots” at any Protestant scholars. Explaining an error in a position does not constitute taking a “pot shot” at a person who holds that position.
If you would like us to address any argument or piece of evidence that Geisler et al have put forward, please feel free to present it. (As for Beckwith, you can read his explanation for why he became Catholic in his book “Return to Rome.”)
On the contrary, what we have presented here on CTC shows that Geisler et al’s claims are mistaken on these very points. But, if you think you have any evidence or argumentation showing that we are wrong, feel free to present it or ask about it.
I’ve read it. I don’t see anything in it that falsifies any Catholic teaching. But if there is some piece of evidence or argumentation that you think does so, or at least don’t see how it doesn’t, feel free to present that or ask a question about that.
The underlying point of disagreement (between Protestants and the Catholic Church) is logically prior to that distinction, because in making this distinction Geisler and MacKenzie have already presupposed that they can determine by their own private interpretation of Scripture what is the gospel, and the entirety of what is essential to the gospel. So already at this point they have assumed that recourse to Church authority is unnecessary to determine the full extent and meaning of the apostolic deposit. And that begs the question (i.e. presupposes precisely what is in question) between Protestants and the Catholic Church. In other words, if their presupposition were true, there wouldn’t need to be a Magisterium, and Christ wouldn’t have established one. Hence, they have loaded an anti-Catholic presupposition into their methodology. With that methodology, of course they reach a non-Catholic conclusion.
I’ve already shown above (in comment #636) how the dichotomy presupposed by this statement is based on a false assumption, namely, that grace and meritorious works are incompatible.
Right, but if Protestantism is a heresy, then it is unsurprising that in the eyes of the first Protestants, what the Catholic Church teaches is false. Saying that in the eyes of historic Protestantism, what the Catholic Church teaches is a “false gospel” doesn’t show one way or the other whether what the Catholic Church teaches is a false gospel, or whether what the Catholic Church teaches is the true gospel and that the early Protestants were blind to its truth.
I do not deny that if one chooses Protestantism as the test for orthodoxy, then the Catholic gospel will be deemed a false gospel. If one chooses any non-Catholic sect as the test for orthodoxy, you’ll get the same result. So, that pushes the question back: should we choose as the test for orthodoxy the opinions of a sect (or group of sects) that in the sixteenth century split from the Catholic Church Christ founded, or should we stick with the Church who, for fifteen hundred years prior, had always been the standard against which orthodoxy and heresy were determined?
The Catholic Church too affirms Romans 4, but does not interpret Romans 4 as denying that works done in grace are meritorious. In Romans 4 the sort of works that are not meritorious are those that are done apart from grace, apart from faith, and apart from agape.
Obviously you and JJS need to have a little chat, because he’s a Reformed pastor, and if you read through the recent comments on this thread, you will see that he thinks that the position you are advocating (i.e. that working out our salvation in fear and trembling, and pursuing the holiness/sanctification without which no one will see the Lord, can in no way contribute to our salvation) is not the Reformed position, but is false teaching.
In practice, perspicuity means “the verses that support my position are the clear ones in light of which the others should be interpreted,” and thus in practice it is a kind of hermeneutic-of-power wearing an epistemological mask.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Paul (#671),
You said:
Protestants teach that we are justified by faith alone. James 2 says we are justified by works, and not by faith alone. If we are going to make any text a hermeneutical anchor/starting point for our evaluation of the claim that justification is by faith alone, I would think it would be best to choose the only text in the New Testament that includes the phrase “faith alone.” The only passage in the New Testament that includes the phrase “faith alone” is James 2, where James “could not be clearer” (to use your phraseology) that we are not justified by faith alone. To say that it’s easier to interpret this passage and “any other passage that seems to teach [something other than the Protestant gospel],” but especially this passage, in light of other “clear teachings” that don’t say “faith alone” is to show, in my opinion, that you have already determined that you will accept the Protestant view and force its hermeneutic whenever necessary. I encourage you to just step back from the debate for a second a reconsider the position you are asserting: God, whom we all agree is not the author of confusion, inspired James to say that we are justified by our works and not by faith alone, when he wanted us to figure out that we are, in fact, justified by faith alone.
Of course I realize that both Catholics and Protestants have their verses that they uphold and understand with a particular nuance, and I know that Protestants use particular nuance to explain how James 2 fits into their paradigm. It’s at this point that I would also encourage you to reconsider what Bryan and others have been saying is the real issue at stake here: not the text of scripture, which we both believe to be the word of God, but the issue of ecclesiology and apostolic authority, without which you and I have no recourse to full communion. If it is the case that we have no recourse but to assert our own interpretations against each other and go our separate ways at the end of the day, then we are truly in a dire situation.
Mateo, you would agree with me that when a person receives Christ as Savior then they have two things going for them in terms of obedience to the Lord. The first is the presence of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 8:1 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus,
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man,
Romans 8:5 Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires.
Romans 8:9 You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
Remember we also have a new nature. The old nature is the sinful nature we were born with. The new nature is given us when we come to Christ for salvation.
2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!
Galatians 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.15 Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Ephesians 4:22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires;23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds;24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Colossians 3:9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.
Mateo, I am convinced the way believers become more holy is to begin to live out the new nature Christ gave them when they were born again. Once a sinner understands Jesus is the Savior, trusts in His blood and not in His own works or in anything else, then the sinner is declared righteous (Justification). Then the believer is given a new nature, by which he has the capacity to worship God. And he is given the presence of the Holy Spirit. It is then that the new nature and Spirit work in the person’s life to conform them to the image of Christ. Justification is a one time act when a sinner is declared righteous. Sanctification is a lifetime’s work when the new nature has more of a role in the person’s life. I echo in my own life what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good.17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
Paul understood that a believer has two natures living inside of him. He has the sinful nature he was born with. And he has a new nature that was given to him when he was saved. Paul in verse 17 says that when he sins it is not him, but sin living in him. He is not passing the buck here. He is understanding that the, “real Paul” is not the sinner he was. The real Paul is the new creation He is in Christ. Paul understood that a sinner is declared righeous by God because of His faith, not because of his work or his cooperation with God. God in Christ is the Savior. All mankind can do is receive Him.
I do want to say this that justification is God declaring a sinner righteous. When is it that a believer is, “made” righteous? It is when he is glorified. We are justified when we believe the Gospel about Christ’s death on the Cross. We are being sanctified daily and becoming more holy. At the resurrection of the dead believers are glorified. It’s then we are made completely and perfectly holy.
Bryan,
You did not respond to my request that you fully address, as your primary focus and response to my last post, each of the points raised in the 2007 Michael A. Field article at:
https://www.normangeisler.net/The%20Only%20Church_9%203.pdf
Instead, both you and David Pell, attacked other issues that I alluded to and that VanPastorMan and JSS have already pretty well defended.
I am preparing a more full response, but for now lets just address your comments on the Works vs. Faith without works issues that I feel you have completely misrepresented and gotten wrong. I believe the CC has a history of doing these exact kinds of things (eisegesis vs. exegesis), and in doing so claims some special Authority that makes uninformed persons believe such claims as truth when they are not…all the while making the CC appear unique and special in ways that it is not.
To show you what I mean on this topic I offer the following and, pending a more thorough posting on the matters you have overlooked and chosen not to directly address in the Field article, I hope you will give a focused and honest response.
Concerning faith, works and James 2 – James tells us exactly the kind of faith he is talking about; namely, not saving faith, which the Reformers said comprised notitia (information), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (full living, personal trust)—but instead, mere intellectual assent, as in what we might call “head knowledge without the heart,” or believing something to be true without concern for it, or a faith that produces no spiritual fruit. It is that kind of faith alone that cannot save, which James warns about—as is clear to most from the context although not represented as such by the CC. Yet, another confounding finding of the HCC .
The argument that the words “faith alone” must appear as such in order to verify sola fide is like requiring the word Trinity to appear in the text in order to verify the doctrine of the Trinity. The substance of the doctrine appears in Scripture and the term sola fide, like Trinity, simply codifies the complex doctrine.
Romans 4 speaks of the faith that justifies the wicked before a holy God and it is explicitly said to be apart from our works; indeed, works in this context is said to obligate God, if that were possible, but Paul insists it is by this saving faith alone that we are justified.
Unbelievably, you C2C Writers, categorize my prior input of what the above explains in detail as being Gnostic?
Paul
Paul, (re: #677)
You wrote:
I did respond to your request, by writing, “Is there anything in this material that you would like us to address? As I said to you earlier in this thread, it is best only to address one question/subject at a time, not throw dozens of questions/objections at each other at a time.” It would be too unwieldly and unprofitable to take on many points at a time; it would be better if you picked a question or objection or point from the article, and asked about it. So, feel free to ask about any particular point or objection or piece of evidence in that article.
Scripture never uses the term ‘fiducia,’ or teaches that living faith is personal trust-uninformed-by-agape. That’s a man-made tradition. In the Tradition, the concept of living faith is assent-informed-by-agape. Faith is made alive by agape, because faith works only through agape. (cf. Gal 5:6) Dead faith is assent that is not informed by agape. And that’s what the demons have. Only living faith (i.e. faith-informed-by-agape) justifies. That’s why “faith alone” is wrong if by ‘faith” is meant faith-not-informed-by-agape. (See “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?“)
Agreed; that’s why I never made that argument.
Paul never says here or anywhere that justification is by “saving faith alone.” The notion that he does is an interpretation of what St. Paul has written, and it glosses over at least two things: what is included in ‘saving faith,’ (e.g. whether agape is included in saving faith), and whether St. Paul is talking about justification as translation from sin into grace, or is talking about growth in righteousness. In Romans, St. Paul is talking about living faith, i.e. faith-informed-by-agape, not mere assent-with-fiducia. Also, in Romans 4, St. Paul is talking about justification as a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ. He is not talking about growth in justification, and thus he is not talking about works done in grace. And so what St. Paul is saying in Romans 4 is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches, namely, that no works done apart from grace can bring about justification (as translation from the state of sin into the state of grace), or can merit any supernatural reward; rather, justification as translation from sin into grace, comes through faith-informed-by-agape, and has always done so, even in the Old Covenant. And that is fully compatible with the Church’s teaching that for those who are presently justified (i.e. already in a state of grace), that which we do in agape for God is meritorious, and the reward for agape is not a created thing, but is a greater share in the love of God Himself, and is thus an increase in justification. And that is what Trent 6.16 is teaching.
What is gnostic is separating Jesus from the Church He founded, as though we don’t need the Church and the sacraments Christ established in order to have Jesus, and we do not receive the fruit of Christ’s work through the Church, but instead by a direct and individual pipeline straight from heaven to each believer. You can find this notion in the Montanists, for example.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
It has been years since I have read Horton’s Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, so I can’t comment with any specifics. I would say, though, that when we Reformed people say the kinds of things you quoted, it is always in the context of justification and the meritorious cause of our salvation. But Horton, who as a minister is under the Three Forms of Unity and as a professor is also bound to the Westminster Standards, would wholeheartedly affirm the necessity of Spirit-wrought good works and the transformation of the inner man. I think that it is a misunderstanding of his (and the Reformed) position to imply that he thinks otherwise.
So I will reiterate my earlier point: anyone who takes the time to read the confessional documents of our churches will see that the claim that Reformed theology has no place for the inner transformation and infusion of righteousness, the need for Spirit-wrought obedience, and a final judgment according to works, is a claim that is false on its face.
Jason, (re: #679)
Here’s something quite recent:
In the video, Horton says:
The law-gospel paradigm Horton is using is incompatible with the thesis that synergistic sanctification is part of our salvation. Nothing we (regenerated persons) do, according to Horton, contributes to our salvation. Everything salvific is on the “gospel’ side of the dichotomy, and nothing required by us goes on the gospel (i.e. salvific) side of the dichotomy, as I explained here. Otherwise, according to Horton, we would be “partly our own saviors.” And, for Horton, that’s impossible. For Horton, we are not merely-justified-but-still-needing-sanctification-to-be-saved. No. “We are saved.” Horton has entirely rejected the participation paradigm of Catholic doctrine, in which we participate in Christ’s work, not only in working out our salvation, but also in participating in His sufferings, and filling up in our own flesh what is lacking in Christ’s sufferings (Col 1:24), being members of His mystical Body. That’s why Horton treats the body of Christ as united by a kind of social contract (united by promises), and not united ontologically by being made partakers in the divine nature and sharing in Christ’s divine life through the sacraments. (See “Horton on being made “One Flesh with Christ“). Horton’s theology is entirely a replacement theology; Christ has done it all for us, such that there is no room left for participation in His salvific work. There is no “communion of the saints” (see paragraph #3 here). For Horton, any contribution on our part would be Pelagianism. This redefines Pelagianism as including any form of human participation by grace in Christ’s saving work, whereas, in actuality, Pelagianism (in its historical form) is the notion of grace-less salvation. So why does Horton think participation in Christ’s work is a kind of Pelagianism? In part because in his viewpoint, “grace alone” entails salvific monergism. I wrote about that in “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory,” where I explained the faulty presuppositions in Horton’s position.
In addition to what I said there, part of the problem is the notion that grace is mere divine favor (see comment #3 in the “Pelagianism Westminster?” thread). If grace is mere favor, then it cannot be participated in, and cannot be infused; it can only be known. And that’s why such a notion of grace reduces the sacraments to merely another mode of communicating knowledge (gnosis), in addition to the sermon. At the Supper, the pastor simply switches to miming.
If what Horton is saying is not in line with the Reformed confessions, then he too should be in the dock. But if he need not be in the dock for saying what I have quoted him saying both here and in #668, then what he is saying is at least within the ‘pale of Reformed orthodoxy,’ and the Reformed confessions are then fully compatible with treating justification as salvation, and with the notion that what we do (after regeneration) in no way contributes to our salvation.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan/JJS:
And if we confuse those two things we’ll make ourselves partly our own saviors. We are saved. We do not extend Christ’s incarnation. We do not contribute to His redeeming and reconciling work in the world. We are the ones who are redeemed and are telling everyone else about it. We are witnesses to His redeeming work, not extensions of it.
Ugh. This is what I’ve been complaining about. I recently said I am prepared to extend Horton a line of credit, and to accept that he endorses all of the nuances and precisions JJS has so carefully specified for us, even though Horton’s obsessive drive to contradict Catholic theology at every turn leads him into imprecise, obfuscating talk, and misleading rhetoric. I am still prepared to lend this line of credit, because I’m a very nice person. But he makes it hard. Catholics who are charged with misunderstanding Reformed doctrine cannot plausibly be blamed for failing to get their information about Reformed theology from reputable Reformed sources, so long as Horton et al. remain on the reputable source list. A person has to already “know better” in order to sift through Horton’s remarks, in order to know what to ignore or “charitably interpret,” and what to take seriously.
Fellas,
Let me just clarify Horton’s law/gospel schema (if for no other reason than to aid those who may not be familiar with it at all—so bear with me even if you already know this).
When the Reformed speak about the antithesis between the law and the gospel, we are speaking in the specific context of justification. Or, if the term “salvation” is used, we are referring to the meritorious cause of our salvation. How can a sinner pass from death to life? How can he be pardoned? It is in response to this specific question that we insist that works play no role whatsoever. We cannot get God’s attention by trying to be good. No, our salvation (by which I mean our being accepted by God and made his child) is by grace alone. “By grace you have been saved… not of works,” “Not by works of righteousness that we have done, but by his mercy he saved us….” etc., etc. You guys know the verses.
So when we use language that pits grace against works or law against gospel, it is ALWAYS in the context of how we are accepted by God and acquitted in his heavenly court.
But the Reformed, and Horton in particular, also talk about what we call “the third use of the law,” which has to do with how the law of God functions as our rule of life. You can look at the Larger Catechism to see how meticulously we treat the ten commandments and how seriously we take their application to the Christian life today (again, no one can accuse the Puritans of advocating moral laxity). However, we insist that our Spirit-wrought obedience is offered as a response of gratitude to God because of the grace we have been given in Christ, and never as the cause of that grace.
So the picture looks like this: Guilt –> Grace –> Gratitude, and it’s in that third category that we talk about things like the infusion of righteousness, inner transformation, and holy living. We live godly lives because we have been made God’s sons through adoption, for “the grace of God… teaches us to deny ungodliness and worldly lusts.” That’s why Paul always begins his letters by telling his readers what God has done for them, then he says “Therefore,” and then proceeds to tell them how to live.
Hope that helps.
We cannot get God’s attention by trying to be good.
facientibus quod in se est Deus non denigat gratiam
RE #682: JSS, I have read and re-read what you have just written. May I respectfully ask, what is the big deal? This is the standard Reformed formulation. Who in this thread has denied that this is what confessional Reformed teach? Who do you think does not understand this? What are we arguing about?
Fr Alvin Kimel,
Have you read the recent comments here? Reformed theology is being objected to quite strongly for reasons that I think are unfair. So I wrote my last comment in order to try to put Horton’s statements about the gospel in context and hopefully make them less offensive to everyone.
Do you have a problem with me commenting here or something? I hardly consider myself even in the top-ten most argumentative Protestants on this blog.
Andrew,
So Cornelius passed from a state of sin and death to new life in Christ on account of his works? As far as I know, Catholics don’t teach that, so I can’t figure out why you posted that passage. I thought you guys taught that God makes the first move by giving actual grace, but maybe I’m wrong.
Jason, (#679)
I hear what you are saying about “a final judgment according to works,” but it seems to me that in Reformed theology, it has to be a kind of lip service, because of the implications of other Reformed doctrines.
In case the ‘Good-O-Meter’ video in #611 seems to be non-Reformed, here’s R.C. Sproul, quoting D. James Kennedy saying essentially the same thing:
So if when the Father is looking at me, He sees only the righteousness of Christ imputed to me, then either (a) that set-up ends at or sometime before the final Judgment, and at the Judgment the Father gets a clear view of all my thoughts, words and deeds, and judges me according to them, or (b) something along the lines of the Good-O-Meter depiction is correct, and even on the Day of Judgment, when He looks at me, He sees only Christ’s perfect righteousness, and I am not judged on the basis of my thoughts, words, deeds and omissions.
Consider option (b) first. If the Good-O-Meter version is correct, then for the elect, there really is no “final judgment according to works.” There is only a “final judgment according to works” for those who are not in Christ. So, on this horn of the dilemma, even though the doctrine of final judgment is stated in the Reformed confessions, it is merely empty semantics, because there really is no final judgment according to works, for the elect. They don’t deserve any heavenly reward at all, if every single sin deserves damnation, and they sinned daily; so any ‘rewards’ they are given are not rewards at all, but only gifts. Nor are they punished for their sins. So, there is essentially no judgment for them. They skirt the Judgment, as as the man does in the Good-O-Meter skit.
Now, consider option (a). If God truly sees all that we have thought, spoken, done and not done, and God judges us according to all that have thought, spoken, done and not done, and if we all sin daily in thought, word and deed, and if as the WCF says, “there is no sin so small but it deserves damnation,” (WCF XV.4) then it follows that all men go to hell, unless something like the Good-O-Meter scenario occurs. In that case again, there is no judgment for the elect, just an examination together with God of their life, an agreement that they deserve damnation, and then a divine pardoning of all their sins for the sake of Christ. If initial justification (at the moment of faith) is a proleptic giving (in advance) of the final verdict on the Day of Judgment, then there is no point in judging the deeds of the elect on the Day of Judgment, since we all already know that they all deserve hell for pretty much everything they did, and we all already know that they have been pardoned for all their sins, and have been divinely declared to be just. So in this option there is no Judgment for the elect for their thoughts, words, and deeds; rather, God just shows off His Memorex-quality memory, and repeats to them what they already know, that they are pardoned. Here too, then the elect skirt the Judgment; only the non-elect go through the Judgment. We addressed this same issue in June of last year; see my comment #32 in that thread.
R.C. Sproul makes this very point when explaining in his view what is the fundamental difference between Protestantism and the Catholic Church. Back in 1995, R.C. Sproul was on the John Ankerberg show, discussing the Evangelicals and Catholics Together document. Here’s a video clip from that program, followed by the transcript:
He believes that he cannot stand before God in heaven with anything less than Christ’s perfect righteousness. Hence, his only option is something like the Good-O-Meter scenario. He doesn’t seem to realize that at the moment of baptism, not only are all our past sins forgiven, when the sanctifying grace and agape Christ merited for us on the cross is infused into our souls, we have the spirit of the law in our hearts, even while concupiscence remains in our lower passions and appetites, and even when we commit venial sins. Agape is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8, 10, Gal 5:14, James 2:8). The Catholic doctrine doesn’t make the Judgment superfluous or mere semantics. We really are judged by God, according to our works, and those whose works were not done in agape receive the wages of their deeds (namely, eternal separation from God), while those whose works were done in grace and agape receive the rightful reward for their works done in agape, namely, the object of their love, God Himself, eternally. Sproul treats righteousness from the point of view of the letter of the law, not the spirit of the law. That’s just the irony, that Sproul, who might think that it is the Catholic Church which is guilty of the error of the Judaizers or the Pharisees, is himself using the letter of the law as the standard of righteousness, not realizing that righteousness was never located in the letter, but in the spirit, in agape. That’s what St. Paul is saying in Romans and Galatians.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hey JJS,
I wasn’t suggesting that Cornelius passed from sin and death to new life in Christ on account of his works. I was suggesting that the claim that we can’t get God’s attention by our good works is false, since Cornelius got God’s attention by his good works. Of course, God gave actual grace prior to those works, but he did not give sanctifying grace / the Holy Spirit until later. Thus, synergism is not excluded from regeneration (passing from death into life), per the old medieval axiom.
Since you were merely clarifying the Reformed position (and I appreciate that and learn from it), it might have been ungracious of me to lob a little text in as a challenge, but it just sort of jumped in my mind and then onto the comment box and circumstances were such that the submit button was clicked. I had a book review of Horton’s Covenant and Salvation going, but then I sort of started despising serial reviews, as not conducive to good reading. From peeking ahead, I get the sense that the link between justification and inward renewal will proceed along the Guilt > Grace > Gratitude line. That line is good, so far as it goes, but leaves some unanswered questions.
Bryan,
I am curious, do you then disagree with N.T. Wright’s understanding of the final judgment? He says that we are presently justified by faith, but on the last day our final justification will take into account our works as well. But there is a congruence between the two, meaning that our Spirit-wrought works that factor into the final judgment are guaranteed beforehand when we are initially saved because of our union with Christ and the indwelling Spirit. In other words, the those who are initially justified by faith are necessarily the same group of people as those who are justified by works on the last day.
I only ask because so many Catholics say they are indebted to Wright and his soteriology in particular.
JJS, yes, I have read recent comments, which is precisely why I am still wondering why you think the Westminster Confession construal of justification has been misrepresented in this thread. I do not recall anyone in the past couple of weeks denying that the classical Reformed position does not incorporate regeneration, sanctification, and good works in its understanding of salvation. I for one happily concede that it does. I also believe that you have accurately presented the classical Reformed position in comment #662.
The key and decisive point, as you point out, is this: “So when we use language that pits grace against works or law against gospel, it is ALWAYS in the context of how we are accepted by God and acquitted in his heavenly court.” Unless this is true, assurance of salvation becomes impossible. The justifying verdict that we hear in the gospel and receive in faith must be identical to the final judgment that we will hear at the Great Assize. It is precisely the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness that makes this possible.
Jason, (re: #689)
I do not agree (with Wright) that all those who are justified at some time during their life on earth, are justified before God on the Day of Judgment, because the Church teaches definitively:
The Church teaches that being presently justified (on earth) does not guarantee that one is predestined, or that one has the gift of perseverance, and therefore does not guarantee that one will be justified on that Day. The grace of justification is given not only to those predestined to life; apostasy is real, not merely apparent.
The Judgment is a judgment of our works, and by it where we will be for eternity is determined. If none of our works can be pleasing to God, and all of our works are, as Calvin said, “impurity and dirt,” there is no point to Judgment for believers, for the reason I gave in my previous comment; there is only something like the Good-O-Meter (cf. #611). But if by grace our works can be made pleasing to God, then there is a point to Judgment for believers. From what I can tell, Wright’s comments at ETS last year imply that his position is still stuck with this problem (the problem I described in #687).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
#689: “I am curious, do you then disagree with N.T. Wright’s understanding of the final judgment? He says that we are presently justified by faith, but on the last day our final justification will take into account our works as well. But there is a congruence between the two, meaning that our Spirit-wrought works that factor into the final judgment are guaranteed beforehand when we are initially saved because of our union with Christ and the indwelling Spirit. In other words, the those who are initially justified by faith are necessarily the same group of people as those who are justified by works on the last day.”
Is this what Wright really says? Please cite chapter and verse. :)
Fr Kimel,
Wright says exactly this in Justification: God’s Plan and Paul’s Vision (Downer’s Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2009). A while back, I wrote a review of the book. In the following bit, I cited chapter and verse:
Following St. Paul’s lead in Romans 2, Wright interprets the eschatological judgment, rendered in view of good works, in terms of justification. On this point, which needs a lot of unpacking, many critics think that Wright sounds much more “Catholic” than is customary among his fellow Protestants. In fact, Wright’s advocacy of the demonstrative, as opposed to teleological, role of works in justification, in connection with the eschatological judgment, is par for the Protestant course (at least, the Calvinist course). The following quote, in which Wright reflects on Philippians 3:7-14, is representative:
Wright has said as much before, the basic idea being, as Jason indicated, that the future judgement will certainly correspond to the present judgment–justified. Wright is thus pretty Reformed-compatible here, though maybe they part ways over the question of whether or not the works that we do in the interim form part of the basis of that future declaration.
Andrew, you’ve got me at a disadvantage, I confess. I have read a BUNCH of Wright, including his commentary on Romans, but I have not read his more recent book on Justification. I have never understood him as arguing for a Calvinist construal of perseverance of the saints. But perhaps I was, and am, wrong. It’s been several years since I last read him.
I will say this. Bishop Wright is an entertaining dinner companion! :)
Fr. Kimel,
I am jealous. And I am a (moderate) fan of N.T. Wright. Climax of the Covenant and New Testament and the People of God remain favorites (have yet to proceed to his commentaries or next two volumes of Christian Origins series). However, I am less than satisfied with his critical realist, narrative-model epistemology, which is partly responsible, in my opinion, for both his covenantal nominalism (notice I did not write covenantal *nomism*) and his unhappiness with the ontological categories that Catholic theology makes use of in her dogmas regarding the eucharist and justification. Still, I dig the reference to the Lord of the Rings in the Introduction to NT & People of God.
Andrew,
I remember being puzzled by his presentation of initial justification and eschatological judgment, both in Justification and in a few other places I’ve heard him say similar things (I believe in various talks I’ve heard, but perhaps elsewhere in print). (I did read him the same way as you, by the way. I wasn’t “puzzled” in that respect.) In particular, I remember thinking, “Note to self: revisit Wright’s sacramentology and the role of baptism in specific, and see whether he can get away with saying Calvinist-sounding stuff about the present proleptic judgment “justified” invariably matching the final verdict, etc.” I confess that I haven’t read Wright for a year or more either, though (like you) I deeply appreciate The Climax of the Covenant (to say nothing of Jesus and the Victory of God). And while those books are sitting a few feet from me just now, I wonder whether I can prevail upon you to tell me how baptism figures into the picture, and whether he ever integrates it in a coherent way with the “perseverance of the saints-ish” stuff.
Neal
Neal, That’s the thing, the absence of baptism in the book on Justification. He talks about it a little in Climax (cf. p. 47-49), and there baptism is portrayed in terms that remind one of how he talks about justification (e.g. incorporation). Elsewhere, Wright is even more pointed in saying that baptism is the way that we are incorporated into the covenant. My hunch is that given his intended audience in Justification, Wright simply focuses on “faith,” not so to exclude baptism (which I think is good biblical theology), but refrains from mentioning baptism so as not to further alienate his riled-up American evangelical / reformed interlocutors. Nevertheless, I would be really surprised if he came out and said that all the baptized will be vindicated at the final judgment on a Romans 2 sort of basis. Still, once you say that the final verdict will match the intial declaration of “righteous” ( = “covenant member”), and that this verdict will be on the basis of the life lived, and that one is made a covenant member by baptism …
How does a man “receive Christ as Savior”? I need to know what you believe before I can agree with this statement.
The Catholic Church teaches that once a man is regenerated by the sanctifying grace bestowed by the Sacrament of Baptism that he becomes a partaker of the divine nature of God. The indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that comes to the Christian who has received a valid Sacrament of Baptism brings him into a relationship with Jesus as Lord.
I agree with you that having a relationship with Jesus as Lord entails obedience to Jesus, and that truly having Jesus as one’s Lord is impossible except by the power of the Holy Spirit.
We need to define what you mean by the word “nature”. Catholics believe that the grace of God perfects our human nature, and that we have the same human nature before and after regeneration by the Spirit. This is not the first time that I have had a Protestant evangelical tell me about the two natures living inside of man, and I usually find these two natures discussions to be baffling, since “nature” never gets defined by the Protestant initiating this line of reasoning.
What does it mean that I have a “sin nature”, and that I acquire a “new nature” by being born again?
As far as I can understand Calvinism, it posits the existence of several species of “men” with different kinds of human nature. As I understand Calvinism, it teaches that Adam, before the Fall, had an unsanctified human nature that enabled him to work his way into Heaven (pre-fall Adam was in a covenant of works with God). But because Adam sinned instead of persisting in obedience, he lost his unsanctified pre-fall human nature and became a new species of man with an entirely new human nature – a carnal man with a totally depraved “sin nature”. The progeny of this new species of human beings were also born with “sin natures”. The totally depraved men born into this degraded state of being were both incapable of working their way into Heaven because of their sin natures, and they were doomed to a final end of eternity in the lake of fire, a final end that would come when the abode of the dead is cast into the lake of fire after the white throne judgement (see Revelation 20:14). This degraded state of being persisted for all men until Christ came to forensically justify the elect, both the elect on earth and the elect dwelling in the abode of the dead. After forensic justification, the fallen man on earth acquires yet another human nature without losing his “sin nature”. The elect on earth are human beings with two natures – a carnal/holy hypostatic union, so to speak – a union of the old totally depraved sin nature and the new human nature wrought by grace. The elect on earth are simul justus et peccator, both justified and sinner – they have two natures, the human nature of a saint and the human nature of a sinner.
Then there is yet another human nature that can be said to exist – the human nature that Jesus took on before he died on the Cross. Obviously Jesus didn’t have a sin nature at birth, since Christ is like us in all things except sin. Christ must have had yet a fourth kind of human nature between the time of his conception in the womb of Mary and his death on the cross – a holy human nature that allowed him to die on the cross while being without a sin nature. Christ’s pre-resurrection human nature was neither the unsanctified pre-fall human nature of Adam that bestowed upon him bodily immortality and allowed him to work his way into heaven apart from grace; nor was it the post-fall “sin nature” of Adam that ensured that no man could enter heaven while possessing this human nature; nor was it the hypostatic union of the carnal nature/holy nature of the elect on earth.
Sure, Calvinism teaches that when Christ became incarnate that he had two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, but Christ’s pre-Resurrection human nature must be totally alien to my human nature, since unlike Christ, I have a “sin nature” as long as I exist on earth, and there is nothing I can do to be rid of this “sin nature” until I am dead. It is because of my sin nature that I can die a bodily death. And when I am dead, I will not be able to die again since there is no such thing as reincarnation. So I can never have the human nature of the pre-resurrection Jesus, a holy human nature that was without sin, yet able to suffer death.
VanPastorMan, if you don’t mind, could you define what you mean by “nature”, when you say that the believer has two natures living inside of him? I freely admit that I might by totally confused about what Calvinists really teach about the human nature of fallen men and its relationship to grace; the human nature of Adam possessed before the Fall; Christ’s holy human nature that was able to suffer death, etc.
I would say that we don’t become more holy by losing our human nature, we become holy through grace perfecting our human nature. Our growth in holiness is both monergistic and synergistic; that growth involves both passive purification and active purification.
Declared righteous, but not really righteous – man with a sin nature that is left in bondage to sin both before and after this declaration of righteousness. I don’t believe this.
I agree that Jesus is indeed our Savior, but what Jesus saves us from is the bondage to sin. Without God’s grace, we cannot live the moral life that is pleasing to God, nor can we manifest the supernatural works of charity. The trust that a sinner needs in God is like the trust that a recovering alcoholic needs in God. The first step to sobriety for an alcoholic is to recognize that by his own effort and will power that he is never going to overcome his alcoholism. He must begin by working the steps, starting with step one:
Substitute in the above “sin” for “alcohol”, and substitute “Christ” for “higher power” and we are getting closer to the Gospel:
The conversion of the sinner doesn’t stop at the intellectual assent given in step three of the above, anymore than recovery from alcoholism stops at the intellectual assent given in step three of the twelve steps. To “convert” from a life of alcoholism, all the other steps must be worked too – steps that require doing things, not just believing in a higher power. The alcoholic isn’t given a new nature by entering AA – the alcoholic is opening himself up to the transforming power of grace by trusting God. Likewise, the sinner isn’t given a new nature by giving intellectual assent to Christ as his Savior. The sinner begins a new life in Christ by receiving the first conversion wrought by the grace of Baptism, and then he grows in his primary conversion through the second conversion that is wrought by cooperating with the grace of God:
Andrew,
Yes, exactly. That’s why I was left feeling puzzled. I’d be extremely surprised to discover that Wright’s view on baptism was weak enough to let him affirm the Calvinist sounding things that took Fr Kimel by surprise; yet the question is so obvious it seems he would have taken it up somewhere. I do agree with you, by the way, that Wright plays to the [Reformed/evangelical] audience quite a bit in Justification; didn’t stop me from thoroughly enjoying the read (I think I read it like 2 and a half times, right after getting it), but there were several spots at which “circumstances were such that my eyes rolled upward into my sockets,” as Mr. Preslar might put it.
Thanks for the post. I find the mentions about his character the most telling. All of the reformers seemed to lack Christian Charity and their acts recklessly plunged Europe into Centuries of war and strife. Their philosophical underpinnings laid the framework for modern secularism and liberalism. The fruit of this tree is poison. I converted some 12 years ago this Easter.
In his article, David writes, “I had blithely and confidently dismissed baptism, Eucharist, and the Church itself as “merely symbolic,” “purely spiritual” or, ultimately, unnecessary.” This morning, during the reading at the Procession with Palms, at the beginning of the liturgy, the deacon read from Matthew 21:
As I was standing there listening to the words from the Gospel, I was reminded of Michael Horton’s words in comment #680 above:
I was considering how the ass and colt contributed to Christ’s redeeming and reconciling work in the world, by carrying Him into Jerusalem.
Then, during the gospel reading for today, we heard:
In the Scripture readings for today we see Jesus extend to an ass and a colt a dignity which, according to Horton, Christ withholds from all Christians. Likewise, in today’s reading, we see Simon of Cyrene given the privilege of participating in carrying Christ’s cross. But according to Horton, Christ gives no such privilege to any Christian. For the early Church, we are all Simon of Cyrene, each called to participate in the carrying Christ’s cross. Origen, for example, writes:
And concerning Simon of Cyrene, St. Leo the Great writes:
In this way, the readings for today concerning the ass and the colt, and concerning Simon of Cyrene, teach us that we are called to participate in Christ’s sufferings, and that by doing so, we do extend Christ’s incarnation, and we do contribute to His redeeming and reconciling work in the world. This is precisely why, contrary to what David once believed as a Protestant, baptism, Eucharist, and the Church itself are not “merely symbolic,” “purely spiritual” or, ultimately, unnecessary.” If Christ has granted such dignity to an ass and a colt and a foreigner, how much more does He grant it to us, sons in the Son? Christ has granted to the Church the privilege of being the minister of reconciliation, through which in the sacraments the world is reconciled to Christ, united to Christ, and through which the benefit of Christ’s redeeming work is brought to the whole world. We are the ass, the colt, and the Cyrenian, recruited into service for the Kingdom, to participate in the redemptive work of the Son of David, the King of the Jews, a work that continues in His Body the Church, until He returns in glory. The gospel is a gospel of substitution-for-participation, not substitution-for-replacement, with no room for participation.
Hi All,
I am not a theologian or a person who has studied the Bible extensively and intensively as you all do. But I read verses from my little Bible. I was brought up in a Catholic household and went to Catholic schools.
Had some agnostic moments last year (dark night of the soul, I guess). I try to fit the teachings to my own understanding as I pleased, but nothing makes sense. Even Solomon, the smartest man, said that wisdom is meaningless. All I know is that God wants us all to obey. Religion is religion. It is not something that you create to suit your needs and preferences, it is something that you need to follow and obey. If protestants want to interpret scriptures their own way, where is obedience? Jesus Himself said that Peter is the rock. To me, it’s simple, Jesus can never be wrong.
God in the old testament is very specific in giving instructions. To me, Catholic practices are sacrifices and practical proof that we do OBEY. As the people obeyed Moses, we obey our leaders. Catholics are Christians. We do not only obey instructions, we also love our neighbors.
Mary is the mother of our Lord Jesus. Jesus is perfect. That means a perfect Son. He loves his mother so much and Mary, being a perfect woman chosen by God to bear His Son, should be venerated. I am not a good daughter but if anyone respects my mother, I’d love him and if anyone disrespects my mother, I’d be his enemy. Christ was human too but a perfect human being. Mary, a humble woman, was honored to be chosen by God who sent the angel to tell her.
Saints are Models. If it’s possible for them to give their lives to God, why can’t we?
There have been protestants telling me how wrong the Catholic is. Some of them, would ask me to accept Jesus Christ as my savior. Why? Do they think Catholics have not? That I need to accept Christ as if I’m an atheist. I think they just misunderstood and judged the Roman Catholic church. For them to really know her, they should join first. Jesus said that you cannot enter the Kingdom of God unless you become like the little children. So, better leave instructions to authorities and just live your life free.
Hello C2C, I have been reading your site for several weeks now. I have read or at least skimmed every article. Let me introduce myself, my name is Aaron and I am currently a member of a PCA church. I was raised Pentecostal, went to a Baptist High School while attending a Charismatic Church, had nothing to do with church for most of my college years, and then began reading some of the Reformed guys (Sproul, Horton etc…) which led me to the PCA. I say all that to say this: I am in a period of discernment concerning converting to Catholicism. How did this happen? Two ways: 1) a profound (albeit completely subjective) feeling that the current situation of worldwide protestantism, with all its division, church shopping, doctrinal confusion, and outright heresy, cannot be pleasing to Christ; and 2) N.T. Wright (surprise, surprise).
I have a question and I’m not quite sure where to ask it, but this post seemed as good a spot as any, sorry if it’s off topic. What is the one issue between Catholicism and Protestantism that will make one choice over the other inevitable? I have grown up believing that this issue was Justification, however, I read on this site somewhere (can’t remember if it was an article or someone’s comment) that if you don’t see the theological difference between Rome and Westminster as a salvation issue than you might as well convert to Catholicism because you have no protest. Is this the general opinion? I have to be honest I don’t see it as a salvation issue. But if it is not Justification than what is it? Magisterial infallibility? Apostolic Succession? What is the one issue you would point me to to pray about, read about, ask about, that would make my decision clearer?
Many thanks,
Aaron
Aaron, may I suggest that the central and key question is, Where is the Church? Cardinal Newman eventually determined that the Church of Christ–identified by the notes of holiness, unity, catholicity, and apostolicity–were to be found in the (Roman) Catholic Church. Once he made this determination, he had no problem embracing the dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church. Others, of course, judge that the Church of Christ is to be found in the Eastern Orthodox Churches, etc.
Before making any decisions, you need to attend Sunday Mass at various Catholic Churches over a good period of time.
Aaron G. I recomend http://www.piratechristianradio.com and check out Lutheranism at https://www.bookofconcord.org/ Since you are coming from a Reformed background I am guessing you don’t really know much about Lutheranism. Just check it out before you go to the Pope.
Aaron,
If I may, to borrow from what the late Father Richard John Neuhaus said to me, the real question to ask and seek an answer for is “Did Jesus Christ intend and establish one Church?” If the answer to that is yes then that rules out, by definition, almost all Protestant communions (because none claim to be that one Church intended and established by Christ). Like Father Kimmel, you have to ask “Where is the Church that Jesus intended and established, who could possibly be that Church?”
I will pray for you as discern this.
Hi Aaron –
I was in a very similar spot not so very long ago. I am a convert to Catholicism from Presbyterian Protestantism. My wife, two boys and I joined the Church this past Easter. C2C and the many many late night hours I spent reading through articles and combox conversations over the last two years were highly influential in my conversion.
I am interested to see how others answer this question. Here are a few thoughts of my own.
First, though I don’t know Fr. Kimel, I’d like to say that I highly respect him and have benefited greatly from his writings. I always perk up my ears when he starts talking here on C2C. However, from the very beginning of my inquiry into Catholicism, I never viewed as fundamental the question Fr. Kimel suggests. It takes a bit of context to explain why. Before becoming Presbyterian, I was part of a non-denominational religious group. Though it is established in most countries in the world, and in almost every town in the U.S. (in many towns there are multiple groups/churches), it is known by few people outside the group. It was started in the late 1900s in Ireland by a couple of men associated with Faith Mission, an evangelistic organization. These men became convicted of several things: first, that Jesus instructions to his Apostles in Matt. 10 are still applicable; second, that it was sinful for clergymen to have a regular salary; third, that the New Testament descriptions of the believers meeting in homes are normative, and thus that owning and meeting in church buildings is sinful. The second belief was based in large part on Jesus words about not doing one’s alms before men, and on the belief that accepting a regular salary for preaching the gospel made one a hired hand rather than a true shepherd (John 10). In line with their first belief, they sold everything they had, and began walking from town to town preaching what they thought was the gospel. They quickly developed a following. For obvious reasons, they were rejected from other Christian Churches and thus began setting up their own local groups.
Today, as I say, the group is worldwide. They don’t keep tabs on the number of adherents (believing such practices only feed denominational pride) so there is no way to tell how many people are involved. But the state of California alone (where I grew up) has many thousands. The group has a celibate ministry of men and women who are assigned (and reassigned every year) to different regions in each state, two men or two women to each region. The smaller regions are organized into larger ones led by what they call an “overseer”. During the year these ministers stay in the homes of the followers while conducting “gospel meetings” and other proselytizing activities within their region. Once a year several of the regions come together for conventions. In California alone there are three such conventions throughout the state, each of which is held twice on consecutive weekends so as to accommodate all the members. True to their roots, these ministers own only what they can carry in a few suitcases, and live on unsolicited donations (money, food, cars, etc) from the people. You will never hear them ask for money or see a collection plate passed.
Why is all this relevant to what Fr. Kimel said? Well, this group developed three false beliefs: (1) that they were the only “true church,” the one saved remnant among all the false churches (i.e., all other Christian churches); (2) that their particular group could be traced historically all the way back to Christ; and (3) that the ministers are Apostles, or at least very like them. The first and third developed very early on. The second second came later after the first couple of generations died off. Of course, the only way these beliefs can be maintained is if the members are either not exposed to falsifying information or taught to distrust anything that contradicts what they believe. Accordingly, all religious literature is off limits. Yet, occasionally people do read stuff, and members who leave the group will often publish information that undermines the group’s core claims. So an intense distrust of all conflicting information is formally and informally inculcated into the minds of the members. For this reason, many people who leave the group call it a cult.
As should be apparent by now, this group has many similarities to the Catholic Church. And people who leave it, like people who leave other highly exclusive Christian denominations, tend to be very suspicious of “we’re the true Church” kinds of claims. There are several reasons for this. One is that we (my family and others who belong to similar groups) know what it is like to be utterly convinced that one is in the true church, and learn afterward that one was utterly mistaken. But another reason is that people from this kind of background often reject the presupposition required for such claims to make sense, viz., that there is such a thing as “one true Church,” at least in the sense of a visible body of people contiguous with the apostolic church. So the important question becomes not whether this or that denomination is “the true church,” but whether or not this particular denomination or local church is biblically sound and preaches the true gospel. Hence, for myself three years ago, and for my extended family now, the question “where is the Church?” understood as a question that can be answered by pointing to a particular group of people, begs the question. Of course, there are other senses in which that question can be asked. E.g., it can be a request for a list of features any true Church would have, or (perhaps, in addition) it can be a request for the criteria by which we could arrive at such a list. But then, these are actually different questions. So I respectfully disagree with Fr. Kimel.
Second, I agree that if one’s differences with Rome are not of salvific importance, one must join Rome. This first dawned on me in the form of realizing that the Catholic Church, because of its historical continuity with the Apostles, is the default position for all Christians; one is justified in remaining outside the Catholic Church only if one believes it has fallen into grave error. This simple thought was rather unsettling to me. I brought it to my pastor, who reluctantly agreed. Of course, he believed that the Church had long fallen into grave error. I was not so sure.
Third, I believe that the most important issues for someone in your position are, not higher level doctrinal specifics, but the meta issues that determine how we will go about forming those higher level doctrines. In my view, there are a cluster of interrelated foundational issues that stand or fall together. I would not go so far as to say that one’s position in relation to this cluster of issues will inevitably determine whether one should join the Catholic Church, but I think it can push one off the fence in a very definite direction.
If sola Scriptura is true, then Catholicism as an interrelated system of doctrines false. So sola Scriptura is one of the foundational issues. This doctrine needs to be examined on its own merits, of course, but there are other related doctrines that need to be considered as well. E.g., if sola Scriptura is going to be practically viable, then the doctrine of the perspicuity of Scripture must be true. But the empirical data of disagreement, not only among ordinary folk but among highly trained theological and linguistic specialists who have all the relevant background knowledge, undermines this doctrine. It follows that sola Scriptura is not practically viable, or at least that the way it is understood and used in Reformed Protestantism needs to be drastically altered. Hence, the doctrine of perspicuity is also part of the fundamental cluster.
A third issue in the cluster is the question of visible and formal unity. It sounds like you are already sufficiently bothered by the lack of it in Protestantism. I felt the same. Given the importance of such unity, if the doctrine of Scriptural perspicuity is false, one really must question the whole Protestant project. This was brought home to me when I realized that if the early Church was Protestant, we never would have come eventually to universal agreement on such things as the nature of Christ and the Trinity. And, interestingly, these are the very doctrines to which Protestants of today will point as constituting the core of their unity. (As an aside, I never found compelling this conception of unity. I’m supposed to believe that we Protestants are sufficiently unified when my son, baptized as an infant in a Presbyterian Church, would have to be re-baptized before joining a Baptist Church? Uh uh. I didn’t buy it.) The question of unity immediately introduces the general issue of interpretive authority. This is where the importance of the Magisterium arises–and, in my view, where Anglicanism ceases to be an option.
In sum, I’m convinced that these meta issues–sola Scriptura, perspicuity of Scripture, unity, and interpretive authority in general–are the issues of primary importance for someone in your position. Unlike many other Reformed Protestants, I have never viewed justification as a foundational issue. This is partly because once I actually understood the Catholic doctrine, it seemed to me perfectly plausible. Moreover, justification is closely connected to other doctrines, like baptism, and I could see no non-question begging reason why one’s doctrine of justification should determine one’s position on the related doctrines rather than the other way around (e.g. why not let one’s view of baptism be the datum that determines one’s view of justification?). But the most important reason why I think justification is not the foundational issue is because how one goes about formulating one’s doctrine of justification presupposes an answer to the meta questions. This is not to say that presupposing sola Scriptura and the other related Protestant doctrines will lead one to believe the Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone; one could very easily come to the Catholic position on justification while operating within a sola Scriptura framework. The point is that regardless of the conclusion that is reached, one must rely on certain principles of interpretation to get there. And if one’s conclusion happens to coincide with the Catholic Church’s, one will not need to look far to find one that doesn’t. At that point, one needs to examine the meta principles. If the Catholic is right on that score, justification, the sacraments, Mary, and most everything else falls into place.
Know that you have my prayers.
– Max
I didn’t see Tom’s post until after I posted. I agree that “Did Jesus Christ intend and establish one Church?” is an important question. But how one goes about answering this, e.g. trying to find a scriptural answer especially to the “intend” part, will inevitably rely on certain interpretive commitments–commitments which not shared by Catholic and Protestant alike.
Peace,
– Max
I do not disagree with anything Max has written above. As Chesterton wrote, ‘The Church is a house with a hundred gates; and no two men enter at exactly the same angle.” Newman’s driving question was, “Where is the Church to be found?” but this may not be the question that drives Aaron or most others. For me personally, I had to first become convinced of the hopelessness of the Protestant adventure before I could seriously consider the ecclesial claims of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches.
I do not know how to eliminate the subjective element and rationally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Catholic (or Orthodox) church is THE Church. I find conversion and faith utterly mysterious.
Two books I found particularly helpful at that time are Stanley Jaki’s *Newman to Converts: An Existential Ecclesiology* and Richard John Neuhaus, *Catholic Matters*.
Fr. Kimel –
“I do not know how to eliminate the subjective element and rationally prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Catholic (or Orthodox) church is THE Church. I find conversion and faith utterly mysterious.”
This is one reason why I have so appreciated your writings over on Pontifications: you are unwilling to oversimplify phenomena that is probably inherently complex and perhaps in some ways inscrutable. Thanks for that.
I remember being a little disappointed after reading Newman’s “Apologia”. He began his long journey into the church already firmly convinced of some doctrines many Protestants find very difficult. So as a Protestant I didn’t find as much help there as I had expected. Still, there were a few parts of that book that proved influential in my own conversion. It is definitely worth reading.
Peace to you,
– Max
Aaron –
One last thing. I agree with Jason that it would be wise to check out Lutheranism. Lutheranism was never a live option for me because it cannot adequately deal with the problems plaguing Protestantism at the foundational level. But exploring it can only help you in your journey.
While you’re checking out Lutheranism, I highly recommend Robert Koons’s lengthy article. Koons is a former Lutheran. His article is especially helpful in identifying the terminological differences that contribute to mutual misunderstanding. You can find his article here:
https://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b7ffffd524.pdf
Peace,
– Max
Gentlemen,
Thanks for your input. I agree that there seem to be many issues to ponder. I may have been trying to oversimplify a complex issue in seeking one issue that when logically followed would lead nowhere but Rome.
In view of the “many gates” that lead to the (Catholic) Church, the one that keeps coming back to me is the question of “Authority.” I used to be quite comfortable with my own conscience as the highest authority, whether in issues of theology or morals. Obviously as a Christian this was a conscience that should be formed by Scripture and the Holy Spirit. And I know that the conscience can be bruised and cannot in any sense be considered infallible. But in some sense I was comforted by this fact; that it was a good and humbling thing to admit that at any given moment, and on any given issue, I could be wrong. And in line with Paul, who in Corinthians admits that certain things are non-negotiable, no matter what your conscience says: incest, adultery etc…; but likewise there were equally some things that were left up to the individual conscience: eating meat sacrificed to idols etc…
Now I say all that to say this: I have no problem in principle deferring my interpretive authority to something like the Magisterium, however, as a Catholic, how much room does one have to disagree with certain teachings, while still being a Catholic? Let me give an example. I am not trying to air anyone’s dirty laundry but it is the starkest example I can think of. Two things: when the various medieval popes called for Crusades, where these calls binding on all Catholics, and were the spiritual benefits promised in return actually given? Because if this were binding (i.e. – sinful to disobey) I don’t know that I could ever convert out of the sheer anxiousness that some similar issue would come up at some point in the future that I would be bound to believe/obey but that I thought was clearly against what it meant to be Christian, on whatever basis (Scripture, conscience, etc…). Likewise, when the Catholic Church sold indulgences and promised a shorter Purgatory in return, and even though we (and admittedly most Catholics) today would admit that this was a serious abuse of Church power, not to mention outright immoral, did this payment for indulgences actually shorten purgatory because the Church taught that it was so? And if not, then on what basis am I today to discern between those things that the next generation may consider to be similar to indulgences?
A commentator suggested that I check out Lutheranism. But this is precisely my point. I could never be an Evangelical Lutheran because of their acceptance of openly gay clergy. To me (by my own interpretation) this is so clearly against what it means to be Christian that I could never in good conscience join, or stay a part of a denomination that taught this. And as a Protestant I always reserve the right to make this subjective call. But to what extent am I giving up this ability if I were to convert to Catholicism?
Thanks,
Aaron
P.S. – out of fairness, since I did air some dirty laundry, I will give credit where credit is due: I have the utmost respect and gratitude for the Catholic Church and her unwavering support for the sacredness of the family, her support for the rights of the unborn, as well as her standing firm on the issue of openly gay clergy in a world that is increasingly hostile to it (and this brief list is not exhaustive, btw).
Aaron G. , You just showed that you don’t know anything about Lutheranism. The ELCA is what you are refering to. They aren’t Lutherans, though they claim the name, because they deny the Bible and the Lutheran Confessions. They are functionally Episcopalian. They are about like the PC-USA. Check out the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod or the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. Not all congregations within any synod are great but here are some resources to help you find some good ones: https://www.lutheranliturgy.org/ https://issuesetc.org/findachurch/ Don’t judge Lutheranism on the ELCA.
From St. Isidore, bishop of Seville (570-636) who wrote a twenty-book topical encyclopedia titled Etymologies, we find that a good sign that a sect is not the Church Christ founded is that it is named after its founder, who is someone other than Jesus Christ. In Books VII and VII of his Etymologies he says the following:
We see the same thing in the fourth century writings of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, who writes:
And St. Jerome, also writing in the fourth century, says something quite similar:
Had Eusebius, St. Jerome, and St. Isidore lived in our time, they likely would have included Lutherans in these lists, for the very same reason. Their sect has its unifying identity and name from a founder who is other than Jesus Christ. Hence they do not have all four marks of the Church (one, holy, catholic and apostolic).
Aaron, may God guide you and give you wisdom as you investigate this question, and may all the angels and saints help you by their prayers.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Aaron,
Those indulgences were real, and the Church still has them. The practice of “selling” them is no longer accepted however because of the potential for abuse. But as a Catholic you will be able to get them if you wish. (just not for cash ;-)
I have a similar history to you. I started out in the AG as a Pentecostal, moved over to Reformed because of RC Sproul etc., and stumbled upon Called to Communion last year. For me the issue was (100%) authority. Who says what is true? Is it me or is it some Church leader, and if so, who? The answer I got from the Reformed crowd was “scripture”. Well, as I am sure you have figured out, that makes no sense, because scripture needs interpreting. Oops, problem. No Protestant group (plausibly) claims to have a Holy Spirit guided magisterium (teaching authority) though. To me the evidence was compelling that the Catholic Church is what she says she is… THE Church. Orthodoxy was a weak second, but I found their explanations of petrine primacy in the early Church really lacking among other reasons.
It really is all about authority for me. I went round and round the Reformed mulberry bush for almost a decade trying to nail down my theology. Trying to find the “correct” theology that Christ wants me to teach my family (wife and 4 daughters with one on the way). That is a serious responsibility, and in my experience, the Reformed world just brushes the issue under the rug and tells you to do your best. Well, if there is one thing I know it is that I WILL screw up when I do my best. If Christ left us a Church where we have to make it up as we go along and “do our best” in finding the truth of scripture, then Christianity is a load of rubbish. My feeling now is that I will be Catholic or nothing. I want the 100% unadulterated truth! Protestantism is a religion of men. Tempting for its many accidental truths, (because even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day), But as time rolls on, its age really shows it to just be another century’s worn out heresy. There is nothing supernatural about a hundred bickering sects all claiming to have the truth and clamoring for your attention. And that is what Protestantism has been from day one. Go ahead and check out the LCMS if you want. You will find yet another sect claiming to have the truth. You may even find you agree with them more than your former sect. But so what? Why trust yourself? The fact that you agree with their interpretation does not make them the Church, it just gives a temporary relief to your intellect. But it will pass, and you will be on the lookout for the “truer” truth in the next thing (Anglicanism perhaps).
In the end, only one very simple fact remains: Christ founded a visible Church.
And that trumps absolutely everything my friend.
Know that my family will be praying for you brother. Peace.
-David Meyer
#712: “Now I say all that to say this: I have no problem in principle deferring my interpretive authority to something like the Magisterium, however, as a Catholic, how much room does one have to disagree with certain teachings, while still being a Catholic?”
No advance answer can be given to your question. It all depends on the specific dogma or teaching. Catholic theologians often vigorously debate about the binding content of a specific dogma, and not all teachings of the Catholic Church enjoy the same level of magisterial authority. The central dogmas and teachings are clear, I think, but there are others where a latitude of opinion is permitted. I’m thinking, for example, of the doctrine of justification: the Lutheran/Catholic Joint Declaration on Justification at least raises some questions. One can find respected Catholics who insist that the Joint Declaration departs from the dogmatic teaching of Trent, yet clearly there are many Catholic theologians who disagree with such a judgment. I have been told on more than one occasion that my beliefs on justification by faith are heretical. Only the future will tell.
This is important, I believe, for all converts to understand. A diversity of doctrinal belief does exist within the Catholic Church. Catholics passionately debate doctrine, and even when the papal office steps in, debate sometimes still proceeds. Matters are not always clear and simple, despite what internet apologists sometimes tell us. For example, just ask a Byzantine Catholic what his Church teaches on the Immaculate Conception. You may be surprised by the answer you receive. If a person is looking for religious system where all doctrine is set down in black and white, all questions settled, with no nuances and qualifications permitted, you will be disappointed in the Catholic Church.
@714- Bryan, that is utterly rediculous. Lutherans did not call themselves Lutherans. Papists labeled them that. Using your logic, then your church cannot be a church because it is named for Rome and not Jesus. Clement of Rome taught the very doctrine Rome Anathematized at Trent.
“All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. ”
Clement forsees that charge of antinomianism and therefore it is clear that he teaches justification by faith alone and that justifying faith produces good works. This is a doctrine that Rome anathematized, therfore Rome anathematized a supposed “Pope”.
Jason (re: #717),
Regarding St. Clement of Rome, I addressed that in “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason (717),
Nothing in what you quoted from Clement conflicts with Catholic soteriology a bit, whether in Trent or otherwise. Having read Clement’s letter just last week from Early Christian Fathers by Cyril Richardson, I was struck with your claim that Clements doctrine was “anathematized”. Strangely, Richardson (who I am guessing is a Protestant) seems to agree with me. Speaking of Clement’ Christianity on pg. 38 Richardson says:
He then gives a few examples of what he sees as differences in their approaches.
Richardson then criticizes Clements view that apostolic succession was the norm at that time. (I guess Richardson knows better than Clement) and then he wraps things up with:
I must say that when I read Clement he sounded really “Catholic” to me, so I agree with Richardson in a way, but of course not with his negative characterization of Clements gospel. I read Clement as a natural extension of Paul… same gospel, different emphases. I guess my main point here is to say that if you are trying to make Clement out to be preaching the gospel of faith alone as understood in it’s reformation sense, you will not be able to, and in fact (as Richardson seems to agree) the opposite will be the case. Even in the late 1st century, the Church is “Catholic” enough to raise the eybrows of Richardson and most other Protestants (and Catholics!). I wonder why you read Clement differently?
Peace,
David Meyer
I’ve read the whole letter before. I didn’t see anything indicating that works are added to faith for justification. I see where we are justified by faith alone and this faith brings good works with it ….”All these, therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. What shall we do, then, brethren? Shall we become slothful in well-doing, and cease from the practice of love? God forbid that any such course should be followed by us! But rather let us hasten with all energy and readiness of mind to perform every good work. For the Creator and Lord of all Himself rejoices in His works. For by His infinitely great power He established the heavens, and by His incomprehensible wisdom He adorned them. He also divided the earth from the water which surrounds it, and fixed it upon the immoveable foundation of His own will. ”…. “In whom, though now ye see Him not, ye believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory;”342 into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that “by grace ye are saved, not of works,”343 but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
-Polycarp to the Philipians
From the Pastor of Hermas:” on account of the mercy of the Lord,114 who has dropped His righteousness down upon you, that ye may be made righteous and holy115 from all your iniquity and depravity; …“Do you see seven women around the tower?” “I do, Lady,” said I. “This tower,” said she, “is supported by them according to the precept of the Lord. Listen now to their functions. The first of them, who is clasping her hands, is called Faith. Through her the elect of God are saved. Another, who has her garments tucked up110 and acts with vigour, is called Self-restraint. She is the daughter of Faith. “But the others,” said I, “O Lady, who are they?” And she said to me, “They are daughters of each other. One of them is called Simplicity, another Guilelessness, another Chastity, another Intelligence, another Love. When then you do all the works of their mother,111 you will be able to live.” “I should like to know,” For from Faith arises Self-restraint; from Self-restraint, Simplicity; from Simplicity, Guilelessness; from Guilelessness, Chastity; from Chastity, Intelligence; and from Intelligence, Love.
It doesn’t get much more plain than that. If you think those texts do not teach Sola Fide then you do not know what Sola Fide means.
Perhaps Roman Catholics don’t really understand the five Solas of the Reformation?
Jason, (re: #720)
You wrote:
The Catholic Church does not teach that we can merit justification (in the sense of that translation from the state of enmity with God to the state of grace through Christ Jesus). So, there is no reason why we would expect to see such a notion in St. Clement.
St. Clement does not say “faith alone.” As I explained in the St. Clement article, he is talking about living faith, which is informed by agape, and thus is not alone. See “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?.”
You quote from the first chapter of St. Polycarp’s epistle to the Phillipians:
That’s fully Catholic. The Catholic Church teaches that it is by grace that we are brought into the newness of divine life, not by any human merit.
Then you quote from the Shepherd of Hermas:
What it means that Christ “dropped down His righteousness” on us, is not an extra nos imputation which entails a mere accounting swap, but an infusion of righteousness, such that we are “made righteous and holy from all our iniquity and depravity.” And that involves the pouring out of agape into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5). So the faith that he is speaking of here is, again, living faith, i.e. faith informed by agape. Loveless faith (i.e. dead faith) cannot give birth to love, because nothing can give what it does not have. That’s why the virtues that are called “daughters” of faith are daughters of living faith, i.e. faith-informed-by-agape. Love is the fulfillment of the law (Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14), and is perfect righteousness. Living faith (i.e. faith-informed-by-agape) brings with it all the other virtues, and the summary and encapsulation of these virtues is “Love,” because in heaven, faith will be done away (because we will see face to face), yet Love will remain.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, it says ALL iniquity and depravity. I don’t see how that would leave room for merits of your own, or from anyone other than Jesus or purgatory. Although I did find one passage in the story that I suppose one could possibly interpret as refering to purgatory but we are dealing with a text that varies widely and is heavily interpolated. I would not be surprised if it is an interpolation from the around the 5th century or later. I am no scholar so I can’t say. As far as what the Roman Catholic Church teaches it is hard to tell. American Catholic friends tell me that the Mass is not a bloodless resacrifice of Christ but a representation of the once for all sacrifice of Christ, and then my non-American Catholic friends say that it is. Or once one guy said one thing and then later said the other. Then there are the magic charms like Scapulars that I am told are a ticket straight to heaven (if you’re good enough, that is).
Jason, (re: #722)
You wrote:
As I said in my previous comment, the Catholic Church does not teach that we can merit justification (in the sense of that translation from the state of enmity with God to the state of grace through Christ Jesus). There is no ‘room’ for merits of our own with respect to justification as translation from enmity with God to the state of grace. That’s exactly what the Council of Trent (Session VI, chapter 5) means in teaching that “without any merits on their part, they are called.” When a person is baptized, for example, all his iniquity and depravity is removed, by the merits of no one else but Christ. The notion that the sinner merits some part of his forgiveness would be Pelagianism or semi-Pelagianism, which the Church has always condemned since the time of St. Augustine.
If you wish to learn what the Catholic Church teaches (and that is especially important to do if you wish to criticize this teaching), I recommend reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Most questions such as this can be cleared up simply by consulting the Catechism.
We don’t believe in any magic charms. Superstition is one of the sins against faith and against the first commandment (cf. CCC 2110-2111). If you want to understand what we believe about sacramentals (which is what a scapular is), then I recommend reading CCC 1667-1679, where it explains that sacramentals are no way magic charms, but are sacred signs (like kneeling to pray, or crossing ourselves, or holy water) that by their designation as sacred signs, affect our disposition, such that we are more ready to receive the grace Christ offers to us in the sacraments Christ instituted.
But, as for matters such as purgatory, the Eucharist, and sacramentals, that takes us far afield from the claim you made in #717, namely, that “Clement of Rome taught the very doctrine Rome Anathematized at Trent.” In no place does the Council of Trent anathematize what St. Clement taught, or does St. Clement teach contrary to the Council of Trent. If, however, one did not understand the point of dispute between Protestants and the Catholic Church regarding the role of agape in justifying faith, then it would be easy to misinterpret what St. Clement says (in chapter 32) as supporting a Lutheran or Reformed conception of justification by “faith alone.” That’s why, as I explained in “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology,” in order to interpret rightly what St. Clement says in that chapter, we have to read it in the context of what he says elsewhere in his epistle, and understand the Catholic teaching concerning the nature of living faith.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Fr. Kimel, you have recommended visiting several Parishes for Mass over a good length of time. What would be the nature of these visits? In other words, what should I be looking out for/paying particular attention to?
This question is for everyone: is it safe to say that everything in the Catechism is to be considered dogmatic and infallible?
Thanks,
Aaron
“Fr. Kimel, you have recommended visiting several Parishes for Mass over a good length of time. What would be the nature of these visits? In other words, what should I be looking out for/paying particular attention to?”
God, of course. :)
I think that in internet discussions of this kind we often forget that conversion is more than just getting our intellectual questions answered. It is encounter with God. Where best for this to happen than in the Sacred Liturgy.
Learning to pray the liturgy takes time and practice. At first one is focused on what to say, what to do. C. S. Lewis once remarked that praying the liturgy was analogous to dancing: as long as one is thinking about the steps, one isn’t dancing; one needs to internalize the steps and then one can truly dance.
Aaron,
Regarding your question concerning the Catechism, the Church does not teach that the Catechism is inerrant or that everything in it is dogma. The exercise of the charism of infallibility takes several forms. One form is called the “extraordinary magisterium,” either when the Pope, speaking not as a private teacher but as universal pastor “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals to be believed by all the faithful,” (Vatican I, Session IV, chapter 4) or when the the bishops of the world, maintaining the bond of communion with the successor of St. Peter, and gathered together in ecumenical council, by a definitive act proclaim a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals, to be held by the universal Church. (See Lumen Gentium 25)(See also CCC 891)
The other form is called the “ordinary and universal magisterium,” when the pope in union with the bishops dispersed throughout the Catholic world, agree (without a single definitive act) on one position [on matters of faith or morals] as definitively to be held by all the faithful. (See Lumen Gentium 25) This is the ordinary and most common expression of the Church’s infallibility.
Even when the magisterial teaching is not intended to be infallible, the authentic ordinary magisterium of the Church still requires the internal assent of the faithful:
The obligation to give religious submission of will and intellect extends beyond that which is infallible. See the three paragraphs that follow the Creed in the Profession of Faith. Notice especially that third paragraph:
The teaching of the Catechism (for any doctrine that has not been defined infallibly) has this level of authority. Catholics are required to give religious submission of mind and will to those claims in the Catechism that have not been infallibly defined. We are to give “religious submission of will and intellect” to such teachings, because ecclesial authority is not limited to what has been infallibly defined. Likewise, encyclicals have this level of authority, when they address questions of faith and morals. Even within an ecumenical council, only the parts that definitively determine matters of faith and morals are infallibily defined. None of the statements in the documents of Vatican II, for example, was infallibly defined at that council, because the council was not intended to definitively determine doctrinal or moral questions. (Of course some of the statements made in the documents in Vatican II had been infallibly defined by previous popes and councils.)
A more thorough explanation of the three grades of assent is explained in Ad tuendam fidem.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
@ Aaron G.
The Introduction to the Catechism of the Catholic Church by Ratzinger and Schonborn (pages 26-27) makes the following points about the authority of the Catechism.
1. It is not a super-dogma.
2. It is a valid and legitimate tool that serves ecclesiastical communion.
3. It is a sure norm for instruction in the faith
4. The individual doctrines which the Catechism presents receive no other weight than that which they already possess.
5. The weight of the Catechism lies in the whole, not in its parts.
6. Whoever rejects it as a whole separates himself beyond question from the faith and teachings of the Church.
The important thing about the Catechism is that while it correctly teaches the Catholic faith, it neither intends to set aside, replace, nor supersede either Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, or the Authentic Magisterial Pronouncements of the Church. The language and structure of the dogmatic documents referenced to in the Catechism take precedence over the language and structure of the Catechism.
The Catechism is a tool for teaching the Faith, but one should not equate it to the sum total of the Deposit of Faith. It is simply a tool that points towards the singular path and means for having an authentic relationship with God, which is through Christ and the Church which He gathers all His people into.
In other words, what should I be looking out for/paying particular attention to? I second Fr. Kimel’s reply. Look for God, or as I would phrase it, look for God looking back at you.
Aaron –
I want to affirm Fr. Kimel’s comments, and clarify my own expressed above.
Fr. Kimel wrote:
I think this is right on target. I would extend it by saying that in discussions of this kind it is also easy to begin thinking wrongly about the foundational issues. There is one sense in which it is true to say that the Catholic vs. Reformed Protestant question hinges on a few core issues, like sola Scriptura, the sufficiency of Scripture, etc. This is the sense in which Catholic Christianity and Reformed Protestant Christianity as whole religious systems or philosophies of life and reality take up opposing positions on a few core issues. Seeing one or the other of these positions as most plausible may not definitively indicate the truth or falsity of Catholicism as a whole, but it goes a long way in that direction.
Because of the logical connection between the Catholic and Reformed Protestant systems and these hermetical doctrines, these doctrines are also dialectically foundational. Serious debates between Protestants and Catholics can never remain at the level of debating the truth or falsity of higher level disagreements like the Marian doctrines or transubstantiation, for there is no shared criteria by which to decide the question. This is of course why C2C has focused so much on these core issues, and why Bryan Cross, Mike Liccone and others have stressed that we frame the Catholic Protestant debate, not merely as a difference of belief concerning a list of doctrines, but as two competing paradigms, each with their own set of assumptions, methods, and, in my view, apparent internal tensions.
I think this is the right way to think about these foundational issues. But the danger in focusing so much on them is that we begin to think that Catholicism is all about the rejection of sola Scriptura, or the ability finally to obtain objectivity and certainty on core doctrines, or, in general, the avoidance of Protestantism’s endemic problems. I should be very concerned for a person who joined the Catholic Church solely on the basis of these kinds of reasons. In my own case, the problems with sola Scriptura and the other doctrines in this foundational cluster served as the wedge that opened my mind to be able to learn what the Church teaches without hostility. Ultimately, they proved to be more than a wedge. After much time, study and thought, it became apparent that Protestantism had some systemic problems, and this made my remaining an orthodox Reformed Protestant pretty much a dead option. But in terms of the particular motivations that drove me into the Church, I think the Catholic arguments about these issues (sola Scriptura et al.) were just the tools God used to knock me off my pride. It was rather humiliating to discover I had no good reason (and almost no reason at all) to accept the very doctrines by which I had justified my wholesale rejection of Catholicism. Once I realized I had no rational basis to reject Catholic teaching, and (with greater humiliation) that I didn’t even understand Catholicism, I was able to learn and inquire with genuine openness.
When I did so, a strange thing happened. Catholicism began making a great deal of sense–way too much sense for me at the time. Often I would read something that would bring to mind a theological tension or unanswered question that had bothered me in the past, but which I had since forgotten. It would unexpectedly be recalled by my reading the Catholic answer to it, which in turn would produce a sense of alignment or relaxation of tension, sort of like finding just the right word for a troublesome sentence. This would happen over and over again, each time ratcheting up the plausibility of Catholicism in my mind. By the time I decided to enter the Church, I saw Catholicism very like G. K. Chesterton saw Christianity:
There was a massive and growing congruity between the way I experienced God and the world as a whole and the teaching of the Church. So on one hand, Catholicism challenged many of my previously held beliefs and assumptions. But it also affirmed some of my deepest perceptions of the world. And, what’s more, it continues to harmonize and extend them in a way unlike any other system of beliefs I have known.
So here’s my clarification of my comments in a previous post. Sola Scriptura and its related doctrines are vitally important in a certain sense. But, speaking from my own experience, it is important to understand and appreciate the Catholic worldview as a whole. It is important to ponder the abstract hermeneutic issues at a purely philosophical level. But it is also important to expose ourselves to God in all the dimensions of our being. If your experience is like mine, your Protestant friends are telling you not to attend Mass, as it may “draw you in.” After a similar comment from my Presbyterian Pastor, I respectfully asked him if he would likewise caution an inquiring agnostic against attending his own church. He admitted that of course he wouldn’t, and admitted the inconsistency in his position. It is undeniable even for Protestants that the exposure to God in the context of corporate worship is an important part of maintaining the faith by encountering Christ in the sacraments, in the word, and in our neighbor. Antagonists might say this is because it diminishes our objectivity. I would say it is because it diminishes our hostility. It is simply false to think that not attending corporate worship, whether it be Mass or a Protestant service, helps one think more objectively. It only helps one think as one has always thought. But this is hardly a neutral vantage point, and it is no help if one’s beliefs are false.
Fr. Kimel is right. Regularly put yourself in a position where you can encounter God. Attend the liturgy. Come early and pray while it is quiet. Seek God. You will find Him.
Peace,
– Max
Max, thank you for being open about your conversion experience. I too seem to be entering a similar phase of my journey. There are many things that I have encountered/read/discovered/stumbled upon that has gotten me to this point. Obviously the theological issues sometimes take precedence. And that is part of the problem. One thing I know about myself is that I will always tend toward the theological/intellectual side of things, most of the time at the expense of the spiritual/mystical side. This makes the PCA a perfect fit for me, and, unfortunately, everyone like me. So now I end up in a church with a bunch of MEs and what a horrible thing that is! But I know that I (and my family) need balance and so began the search for the more spiritual side of Christianity. I don’t think anyone can say that the Catholic Church is deficient here.
I also somehow stumbled upon one of the Papal Encyclicals from BXVI and I was amazed at how much wisdom, not to mention utter common sense was contained in it. Not just about everyday life but about the state of the world in general. It was refreshing to hear someone talk about the Meta-issues of our day from a Kingdom of God perspective as opposed to a Republican/Democrat perspective. My church would be much the better if made to read them!
And this kind of ties in with my last point. Sometimes it just seems as if we in Protestantism are nothing more than a bunch of individual shepherds with no sheep. At least theologically anyway. We get to decide what we want the Bible to say. But when it comes to the issues of our day, the social, economic, political, and moral, we are the opposite: a bunch of sheep without a shepherd. We let the politicians/economists/talking heads/zeitgeist be our shepherd.
Anyway just a few random thoughts!
Shalom,
Aaron G.
“One thing I know about myself is that I will always tend toward the theological/intellectual side of things, most of the time at the expense of the spiritual/mystical side.” Aaronl, that sounds a bit Gnostic.
C2C Community, I have a special request for your prayers today. I am meeting with my Pastor this afternoon to inform him of my wife and I’s intention to end our protest and seek full communion with the Roman Catholic Church. I was not planning on doing this for several more weeks but circumstances have forced my hand. I have no doubt the Holy Spirit is behind this and He is merciful indeed, as the weight of having to do this has been increasing with each day; I was not looking forward to bearing this burden for several more weeks. My wife and I began RCIA a few weeks ago and look to be attending Mass weekly by mid-November and then fully received at Easter.
We informed my parents two weeks ago (they worship with us at our PCA church) and it went about as well as could be expected. After the initial shock wore off and after I forwarded them some resources (including many articles from this site), they have begun a journey of their own into the claims of the Catholic Church.
Your prayers are appreciated!
Shalom,
Aaron G.
Congrats Aaron, and I am praying for you this afternoon. Keep your eyes on the prize (the Eucharist) and do not let any other considerations trip you up.
Btw, just to encourage you, I have a friend who converted after a period of study which started… because his two sons converted. The whole family was solid PCA all the way too. The Spirit blows where He wants too. Also, my mother (OPC) is strongly considering converting partly as a result of my conversion.
David
God be with you Aaron!
Aaron,
Be assured of prayers. I am headed into the Chapel right now (the best part about my work is my room is right across from the Chapel, which has the Blessed Sacrament reposed in the Tabernacle).
@Aaron G:
I will pray for you especially at Mass today, Aaron. I remember very vividly the day, 17 years ago this December, when my wife and I, with our elder son (he was a communicant member in the Reformed Church that we had helped start), went to meet with the elders. We had been instrumental, with two other families, in starting that Church. I was a deacon.
The experience of meeting with them was terrifying. By then I knew I would become a Catholic; my wife and our son were not yet certain. I had, some weeks before, begun the practice of praying the “Hail, Mary” (which, itself, had been a little scary :-)).
Our Pastor, and the other elders, were, naturally, very upset – and somewhat angry. During the time we met with them, I was silently praying the ‘Hail, Mary’ in my mind, to keep my heart from thumping too loudly. I remember his asking me how I hoped to be saved if I became a Catholic. I answered – I think a good answer – “by being perfect, as Jesus is.” I meant, of course, that God’s infused grace and justification would be the means to make me perfect. The answer helped me, even if, as I fear, it bewildered my pastor.
The next morning – this was Saturday evening – we went to Church and the Pastor, with real tears, announced my resignation from the deaconate, and the reason. The whole congregation – quite small – fewer than a hundred persons – was very upset, some weeping – we, also, with our other three children.
We had attended 8AM Mass that morning, before going to the Reformed Church, and continue to do both until Good Friday, when we received our official letter from our Reformed congregation that we could no longer be considered members of the Church – or, in fact, of the Body of Christ.
Sad, but by then all of our family had opted to become Catholics and we were content – not, I think, filled with joy yet – that came with our actual reception and first Communion on Christmas Eve morning service, 1995 – but content. And I think our continuing to attend the Reformed services as well as going to Mass for those few months helped both the Reformed people (several of whom have since become Catholics) and us – them, by showing them that we had not ceased to love God and His people; us, because it helped us to see that we were not leaving in bitterness; we were going to something fuller.
God uphold you and your wife – and children, if you have any – in this stressful time. I’ll add one other little story here that was so touching.
I was not brought up with any religious background at all. Three years after my conversion, my wife and I joined the Reformed Church, and, as I said, in about 1984 we were part of starting this little Reformed congregation. In New Zealand, the bulk of the Reformed were, at the time, of Dutch descent, often Dutch immigrants. I had come to love and to deeply respect the Dutch. I had already been able to read German; I taught myself to read Dutch and, at little, Frisian, read a couple of Dutch novels – and, indeed, two of our four children are married to Dutch.
When I knew we were to leave the Reformed Church, I grieved a little at the loss of the Dutch – but I knew I was doing what God wanted and that was enough.
The Sunday after that fateful Sunday when our public announcement was made, we went to 8AM Mass. As we walked up to the Church and this huge man came up to us, recognising us, I suppose, as ‘foreigners’ :-), shook my hand, and introduced himself – with one of the thickest Dutch accents I have ever known. A Limburgher – I think most of the Limburgh, and, indeed, much of the south of the Netherlands, is Catholic. It brought tears to my eyes and a lump to my throat. It was as though the Lord was saying to me, “Look, you want Dutchmen? I’ve got Dutchmen. I’ve got Dutch and English, I’ve got Somali and Samoan, I’ve got Vietnamese and Thai – men from every tribe and tongue and nation under Heaven. Welcome!”
That was nearly 17 years ago. Jaap has gone to be with the Lord since, and Tillie his wife is still there, sits just behind us, usually, at Mass. God is so good.
God bless and keep you.
jj
Hey Aaron,
When you come into the Church, think about becoming a catechist. All of the research you have done probably will help you, and God can do so much through you. Catechesis is needed badly in the Church, and I hope you give it some thought.
Great news! You have my prayers!
Aaron,
I will pray for you and your family. Conversion can be difficult, for everyone involved. I hope that your parents and other friends and family will follow your example. In any event, you can now pray for all whom you love, before the abiding Presence of Christ in our midst, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity.
Andrew
Aaron, prayers offered up for you.
JJ, thank you for sharing that beautiful set of experiences.
Peace in Christ,
Tom B.
Aaron.
Praying for you here as well.
Sean
Everyone, thanks for your thoughts and prayers. Our meeting went very well. We did not get into any sort of heavy theological wrangling, which I was trying to avoid anyway, and our talk was charitable on both ends. It was difficult as my wife and I were part of the founding team that planted that church. And the issue is complicated by the fact that my wife works for the church! She has already informed them that she is leaving in mid-November because we will be having a baby then. My pastor and I both agreed that it might be awkward if we left while she still worked there so we will be attending until mid-November. This also gives us a few more weeks to tell some of our close friends in person.
Brian, I have thought about that often as I have done a lot of teaching at various churches.
JTJ, thanks for your story, I always look forward to reading your posts. Sounds like your experience was much more traumatic than mine! And yes I do have kids, a two year old boy and a daughter that will come into the world mid-November, Lord willing.
Again, everyone, thanks for all your prayers!
Shalom,
Aaron G.
Aaron,
Welcome home!
One of the writers above suggested that you consider becoming a catechist. I would second that suggestion. There is something to be said for an adult who comes into the Church from outside, and brings with him (or her) a great deal of understanding of what is and what is not correct and the scripture and/or reasoning behind it. It makes for a profound witness about the rightness of Catholicism. Should you become a catechist, you’ll benefit people who lack the hunger that you have by displaying that drive for love and truth and reflecting the grace you have been given. Faith comes by hearing it is written.
Cordially,
dt
Good luck with the reactions of your friends and family. I’m happy that your meeting was cordial, however.
(formerly Aaron G.) C2C community,
About an hour ago my wife and I sent out our final farewell to our church. We informed them that we have decided to end our protest and seek to be united with the Church Christ founded. Having to tell our friends and pastor face-to-face has made for a grueling few weeks. It is bittersweet. There are some things we feel we are losing but so many more things we feel we are gaining. I would like to encourage all of you on this site, especially those who contribute the articles themselves. You are doing good work and you are making a difference. This site was one of many gates (as Chesterton says) that has lead us home to Rome. I would also like to encourage all of you (Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic) who spend much time charitably discussing those issues which divide us, but who do so with a heart to really understand each other. I have gained so much simply reading the discussions in the comboxes.
Shalom,
Aaron Goodrich
congratulations Aaron and family.. Welcome home.
Congratulations Aaron! God be with you.
Congratulations Aaron. May Christ grant you and your wife the peace that comes with finding His Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Aaron, many congratulations to you and your wife. I have been down this road (as have so many other people here), my brother. It’s not easy, but it is worth it. The Truth is always worth it. Please know that you have my prayers and the prayers of innumerable brothers and sisters, both on earth and in Heaven (the communion of the Saints)!
Welcome home to you and your wife, Aaron.
Aaron,
So happy for you! Keep us updated!
Great article! I like to remind my Calvinist and Protestant friends that “Reformed” is an adjective. Then I ask them, what is the “NOUN” it is intended to modify? I am always surprised how many don’t get this but it is something the “Reformers” understood. The answer is “catholic.” The main stream Protestant Reformers by-and-large saw themselves as “Catholics” and contending for the faith once delivered. I feel this especially true with Calvin. It could be said he didn’t mind at all the power of the Pope as long as he was him and he didn’t mind the magesterium as long as he convened it. I still feel Rome needs to Reform itself some more – too many accretions of history rather than essential Apostolic Tradition. I believe she needs to repent of CAUSING both the split of 1054 and the Protestant Reformation by being more modest about her heritage in Peter. As an Anglican I see myself as “Reformed-catholic”.
Dear Phil,
Actually, Catholic is also an adjective. Catholic is used as a noun but is originally an adjective. The noun that “Reformed” was meant to modify was, I think, ecclesia, church (ecclesia reformata semper reformanda = the reformed church must always be in the process of reformation).
These two sentences, coming together as they do, are not lacking in irony. You claim that John Calvin didn’t at all mind the power of the Pope, as long as Calvin had the authority. In the very next sentence you set yourself up as judge of the Catholic Church, how much “reform” it needs to enact, and which of its doctrines and practices are “accretions of history” rather than part of the apostolic faith. The Church did go through a period of reforming itself in the latter 16th and 17th, without resorting to the schism and division of the Protestants. On what principled basis (by “principled” I mean such that you wouldn’t be arbitrarily setting yourself up as the Pope and magisterium, since you seem to decry that in Calvin), would you say that those reforms were not sufficient?
Then you blame the Catholic Church for causing schisms, when as an Anglican you are part of a church which was founded by a King who caused a schism in order to obtain for himself a divorce and set himself up as head of the Church in England.
Just wanted to point out the irony, as least as it seems to me as a Roman Catholic reader. I hope you’ll take the time to peruse some of the articles on this site that deal with issues like who gets to decide how much reform is enough, the nature of the visible Church and schism, etc.
C2C Community, my wife and I were Confirmed and received into the Catholic Church at the Easter Vigil Service Saturday night. The parish we attend celebrates the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite and the service was breathtakingly beautiful, all 3 hours of it. Shortly after midnight we partook of our Lord’s true Body and Blood for the first time in our lives. We were blessed with incredibly obedient kids (which is saying a lot for a 3 year old boy and 4 month old girl!), wonderful sponsors, and much congratulations and encouragement afterwards.
Thank you to all the contributors and commenters here, my journey into the Church included many hours reading through the articles and combox discussions. It feels great to begin this new chapter in our lives and we are excited to begin discovering the richness and depth contained in Holy Mother Church.
Shalom,
Aaron Goodrih
Aaron,
Thanks be to God! What a wonderful testimony. Thank you so much for sharing.
May God continue to bless you richly,
David Anders
Aaron (re:#253),
Brother, praise God, congratulations to you and your wife, and welcome, truly, welcome, to the Church of which St. Irenaeus wrote in 189 A.D.:
and:
Aaron, you have probably already read those passages, and many others, from the early Church Fathers, about the early Catholic Church. I read them, and many others, in my last year as a Calvinist Protestant and a “fallen-away” Catholic. I wish that I had known about such writings before I left the Church. If I had known, I likely would never have left.
I thank and praise God that you are now in the Church which was founded by Christ and His apostles. I also thank and praise God that websites such as this one can widely disseminate accurate information about the early Church which will, hopefully, help to keep people from making the same misinformed mistake(s) that I did (pre-internet, broadly speaking).
Aaron,
Welcome home! I always love seeing formerly Reformed folks come home to the Catholic Church. Makes me feel just that little bit more at home than I already did. May there be many more.
David Meyer
St. Irenaeus wrote in 189 A.D.:
“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
and:
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).
Notice that Irenaeus speaks as though this is a complete and unchangeable tradition and that he is writing against Gnostics and other heretics who would add and take away from the Word of God. While this could deservedly be aimed at Popular American Evangelicalism (which is not evangelical anymore) it can be just as easily and deservedly aimed at the Papacy. https://bookofconcord.org/
Dear All,
Just wanted to pop a note that I, too, believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God. As such, at this last Easter Vigil, I was received into full communion with Archbishop Naumann (of the Archdiocese of Kansas City, Kansas) as the local representative of the Roman Catholic church. Lots of people (both Protestant and Catholic commentators) were significant contributors towards my making such a move – and for this I’m grateful. (The long list of people worth thanking would be, well, rather long indeed, but it would likely start with such persons affiliated directly with the site like Bryan, Neal, Tim, Tom R, Andrew, and David A. as well as a few of the more regular commentators [David Meyers, Michael Liccione, Chris Lake, Aaron G, and JTJ.] I’m sure I’m forgetting lots of people, but that’s how such lists go – apologies in advance).
I’d like to make a quick point to all the lurkers around here (and I know there are lots of you). It took more than a few months for me, constantly lurking on the site, to come to the place where I could take Catholicism as a serious intellectual position. I didn’t know hardly any Catholics growing up and most of the ones that I had didn’t exactly impress me with their theological or spiritual acumen. :-p It was actually Matt Yonke’s article on the role of relics in Catholicism that forced me to stop and face the fact that this wasn’t just all mumbo jumbo by intellectual lightweights to justify their “Romish superstitions”. Instead (to my horror at the time!) I realized that Catholicism was a serious position and, even if it were to be rejected, I couldn’t blow it off anymore as being “silly”. So, lurkers, take this stuff seriously. These guys here are smart and they’re following in the footsteps of even smarter folks (Aquinas, Augustine, Chesterton, Thomas More, etc. Sheesh, it’s not like the more modern Catholic intellectuals are any less impressive; B16, Pinckaers, Robert George, Frank Beckwith, and Ed Feser are just some of the names I’m most familiar with and they’re all “fighting the good fight” in intellectually significant ways right now. So take Catholicism seriously and talk this stuff over with your pastor – if you’re going to stay a Protestant, have some good reason for it. But be mindful of learning more about Catholicism – Chesterton in his nonfiction book “The Catholic Church and Conversion” invites his readers to consider the legend that Rome is a trap and reaches a conclusion wholly borne out by my own experiences:
Then again, there are rather worse fates than stumbling upon an unexpected, beautiful, and ancient truth. I’m already finding out that Catholicism certainly is that, but rather more than that too. :-)
Yours Sincerely,
~Benjamin
Benjamin,
Welcome Home brother! Ave Maria!
Benjamin,
Praise be to God, and welcome Home, brother! I am honored and humbled, seriously, to be one of the persons who has helped you at this site. So many here have been of help to me!
I hope and pray that many Protestants will read your comment carefully and think about it seriously. I didn’t meet many (maybe even any) theologically/spiritually “impressive” Catholics growing up either– but then again, I was born, and I lived for almost 27 years, in a tiny town in heavily Protestant Alabama, in which Catholics were not exactly encouraged to be open about their faith.
In that light, I praise God for the New Evangelization, including the Catechism and faithful Catholic authors and websites! I praise Him even more for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI, who called for, and were always at the forefront of, that New Evangelization! What a joy it is to see it bearing such great fruits in the lives of real people, including bringing many of our separated Protestant brothers and sisters Home to the Church! God is good!
GREAT news, Benjamin! Thanks be to God! Welcome home!
Welcome home, Benjamin! I thank God you thought I had some small part in your conversion.
Best,
Mike
Welcome home Benjamin!
Pax et Bonum,
-Ray
Dr. Liccione, your contributions here played a significant role in my conversion as well. Especially your “Mathison’s Reply to Cross and Judisch: A Largely Philosophical Critique.” I think I may heave read it about 5-6 times and once the full weight of the argument sunk in I felt the last few nails being driven in to the coffin of Protestantism. I also follow your blog and look forward to more posts ;-)
Benjamin, now we will have the same anniversary! I hope your experience Saturday night/Sunday was as beautiful as mine. I’ve already been to Mass again this week and it’s so wonderful to be able to participate fully, after months of sitting in my pew while everyone else was able to partake of our Lord. My wife and I’s journey up to this point has been long and relationally difficult. We’ve certainly come out of it with a few battle scars but out Lord did warn us of such things. But the pearly of great price is worth it. Congratulation!
Shalom,
Aaron Goodrich
Not to pile on.. ok.. this is a GOOD piling on, but Dr. Liccione also played a significant role in helping me overcome some of my objections to Catholicism back in the Pontifications days. I’m eternally grateful for Fr. Al Kimel’s public journey there as it helped clarify many things for me, and I’m also grateful for CtC for the same reason.
Welcome home, Aaron and Benjamin! God bless you and yours with all the riches of Christ.
Christ is Risen!
Andrew
Benjamin,
Wow! I am surprised and delighted that you climbed aboard the Peter’s big boat! I have prayed for you many times, and I have always respected your honesty in your search. You always seem to be quite fair in your questioning and ready to give the benefit of the doubt to all sides. I am honored I could be a help on your journey.
As for me, Bryan Cross and Dr. Liccione were the nails that let the air out of my Reformed tires. I almost didnt come back to the site on that fateful day when they destroyed my theological world. But I am glad I did. Their charitable, confident, godly, and knowledgeable way of doing things made it hard to dismiss them. Like your Chesterton quote points out, the Truth is pesky.
Blessings to you and your family Benjamin!
-David Meyer
I am still not sure why people are so convinced that there must be one institution? As the Church grows and becomes global, must there really be institutional unity? I personally think is impossible, and in fact should be avoided. Vocational unity however, that seems to be a different matter. Coming together for worship and service as witnesses of Jesus Christ, while respecting our differences seems like an honest approach.
And lets please recognize that the Roman Catholic church in no way shape or form has captured the definitive true essence of the gospel, neither have the Eastern Orthodox, Ethiopian Orthodox Anglicans, Reformed, Evangelicals, or Pentecostals. Each has its own distinctive, a member of the whole. This article unintentionally creates this alternative myth of the lost evangelical returning to the true historic Church, which has become very popular of late in the West.
Hi Stephen,
Thank you so much for writing.
If you’ll permit me, I’d like to respond a bit to your question, “Why are people are so convinced there must be institutional unity?”
To begin with, I note in your comment that you affirm what you call “Vocational unity,” that is, by your own words, a unity in worship, service, and witness – while respecting differences.
Without adding any further qualifications, you have actually made a profoundly Catholic statement about the unity of the Church. We also believe that there should be a coming together for worship, service, and witness – while respecting differences.
What I would ask you to consider is this – When you come together for worship, service, and witness – I assume you believe there is some ordering principle to that gathering? I don’t know what tradition you are from, but most Protestants would say they come together for prayers to God through Christ, to read and listen to the Bible, and so forth. They would also affirm some common set of doctrines – like the authority of the Bible, the atonement of the death of Christ, and so forth.
If this is how you also think, I’d like to point out that affirming even this much is to affirm an “institutional unity.”
If you believe that there is some ordering principle by which Christian communities can be rightly identified as such throughout the world (in other words, you don’t ascribe the name “Christian” to just anything), then you believe in institutional unity.
This is a perfectly rational position to take and, in fact, is necessary in order to obey the commands of our Lord.
As you know, Jesus commanded the disciples to take up certain disciplinary matters “with the Church.” (Matthew 18) In order to obey this command, it is necessary to identify the Church as a visible institution. Likewise, St. Paul addressed each of his letters “to the Church at Corinth,” “to the Church in Rome,” and so forth. Paul obviously thought there was some clear, identifying marker by which to distinguish “the Church” in each of these cities. Likewise, St. John in his epistles makes plain that there is a “church” from which one can be excluded, or to which one can be admitted. John objects to Diotrophes, for example, who “puts people out of the Church” without just cause.
So, really, it seems to me that our discussion should not be so much over whether there is to be some form of institutional unity in the Church, but rather what is the basis for that institutional unity.
One point of this article was to point out that John Calvin believed very strongly in the institutional unity of the Church. In his mind, the proper basis for that unity was the doctrinal and disciplinary system that he created in Geneva. He believed that people who defected from that system were to be considered outside of redemption, and alienated from Christ.
Now, that is not at all the Catholic view. Our view is that Christ founded the Church as the normative means of salvation, to which all men are called. We also believe that the Church is recognizable in history through the continuity of her teaching authority, her doctrine, and worship. But, we also recognize a tremendous amount of variety, differences of opinion, and so forth.
What do you believe should be the basis for the “vocational” or “institutional” unity of the Church? And, more to the point, why do you think so?
Thanks again for writing,
David
I just watched your interview with the Journey Home in the Youtube, so I didn’t waste my time of browsing your website. As a Catholic this information strengthen my faith and I believe others too. God bless Dr. Anders and your family.
I don’t understand why you chose to leave the Reformed Christian religion just because of one man. Nobody is perfect. If you judge a religion by its head or specific member… it is in my opinion that you will never find the religion that you are looking for. You are claiming that you like the Catholic religion better…but if you ever did research on their history…you would find that their history is much more horrifying than what Calvin have done. Basing on their religious teachings alone, Catholics are clearly pagan and you are willing to embrace that kind of religion JUST because you like their “saints” and you don’t like Calvin? You confound me.
Hi Elie,
Thanks for reading and commenting. If you read the article carefully, I think you will see that I most certainly did not leave the Reformed Faith because of one man. Not at all. On the contrary, Calvin forced me to examine the theological assumptions of Protestantism, to test them against Scripture, tradition, and reason – and they came up wanting. I owe a great debt to John Calvin, because he helped me to think through the nature of the church, the sacraments, the meaning of salvation, and the transmission of the faith. His own answers to these questions were suggestive, but insufficient. They pointed me, ultimately, to the Catholic Church.
Thanks again,
David Anders
Elie,
While David Anders’ reply is earnest and good, I found myself wanting to add a reply of my own to your last. I myself came from the Baptist tradition (with some Reformed leanings), but my own experience seems to parallel that of David and several other C2C contributors.
You expressed concern that David left because of one man; noting that no one is perfect. When I became Catholic, a non-Catholic Christian friend said, “Don’t go looking for the perfect Church; it doesn’t exist and if it did, it’d stop being perfect as soon as you got there!”
Both of these warnings were meant kindly, but like many other things said by our non-Catholic friends and colleagues, they seemed off-the-mark: They revealed that the speaker, however well-intentioned, had fundamentally not understood our minds and why we were becoming Catholic.
In David’s case, while the flaws of Mr. John Calvin were eye-opening — sometimes a person needs an event or a realization to help him overcome the inertia against pursuing the answers to unsettling questions — those flaws were, in themselves, no reason to leave Reformed Protestantism. To state the obvious: It was not impossible that, if David became Catholic, all the Catholic parishes within 100 miles of his house would turn out to be run by prideful, autocratic, dissenter priests…or, even, that the next pope might turn out to be worse than a Borgia.
In my case, my friend’s remark was equally out-of-left-field: I had not started a four-year passionate study of the Bible and the Apostolic Fathers looking for answers to questions about authority and ecclesiology in order to find a Church containing in it only perfect people! In fact, I knew myself to be nowhere near as good a man as most of my Christian friends. I felt and still feel, spiritually speaking, that I had to “up my game” to be fit for their company. They are kind, responsible, generous, sincere, full of charity and missionary zeal. Intellectually I know they aren’t “perfect” but they look pretty good from the outside. Had I wanted a “perfect” Church I’d have stayed where I was.
It is thus obvious to the person who leaves Protestantism for Catholicism that he is getting NO assurances of a better worship service, or of a more morally decent clergy, or of better youth programs for his children, or better fellowship with a better class of Christians, or anything like that. NONE of the criteria by which Christians in our day typically select membership in one church over another plays any role in his reason for choosing the Catholic Christian faith. When his Protestant family members and friends comment that, “You know, you’ll find things are not as good, and may be worse, in the Catholic church,” the person leaving Protestantism for Catholicism stares uncomprehendingly, not understanding why their friend — who, he thought, knew him well — would raise an item so irrelevant to his own thoughts and motives.
But look at how David answers you: He says, “…Calvin forced me to examine the theological assumptions of Protestantism, to test them against Scripture, tradition, and reason – and they came up wanting…. [H]e helped me to think through the nature of the church, the sacraments, the meaning of salvation, and the transmission of the faith. His own answers to these questions were suggestive, but insufficient. They pointed me, ultimately, to the Catholic Church.”
And I’d say the same, although I never studied Calvin in any great detail. In my case the issue had to do with reconciling the Christian faith as I had heretofore understood and practiced it (especially its absence of unanimity on critical doctrines and lack of any logically-consistent kind of church authority and discipline) with the Bible and with the known Christian practices and writings of the apostolic (and immediate post-apostolic) era.
What I found was that the Bible, while it contains all the data required for the fundamentals of the Christian faith, contains it often in a referential or assumed kind-of-way. It is not a Catechism: It does not spell things out exhaustively and with special effort to avoid misunderstanding. One can easily make a case against infant baptism or in favor of the permissibility of divorce and remarriage. And in some ways the more fundamental a thing is, the less exhaustively it is explained: Paul’s habit is to intentionally skip rehashing the fundamentals — repentance from dead works and baptisms and the laying on of hands and all of that — because he knows he has personally spent months or years in the company of his readers teaching them all that and he’s hoping to get on to other topics.
It should not surprise us, therefore, that there is so much disagreement among Christians about “what the Bible teaches” about, y’know, baptism and “the Lord’s Supper” and ordination and salvation and ecclesiology. The New Testament, mostly written for an already-Christian audience, doesn’t bother with explaining these things or defending them against misunderstandings that haven’t yet arisen! …but refers to them without explanation, as one does when writing to an audience who already knows.
So the Christian who uses “the Bible alone” is stuck trying to tease out the underlying assumptions from these references and asides, at a remove of 2,000 years, after many cultural changes! Few modern Christians making the investigation are Jews, and none of them are First-Century Jews raised in the culture of First-Century Sacrificial Judaism. Small wonder that, in filling in the gaps, they fill them in differently from one another, and mostly with assumptions borrowed from their existing Christian friends, family, and denominational associations!
The relevant question then, is, “How did First-Century Jews and people who’d been taught Christianity by Peter and Paul and John and James understand these words, these ambiguous references, these disputed passages?”
The person who leaves Protestantism for Catholicism does so because he believes he has found the answers to those questions.
Is there anything less relevant to the personal flaws of John Calvin or the quest for the “perfect” church youth program?
Hi there,
Being a Protestant and calvinist, as I read your posts, it is very clear that you misunderstood what is the REAL and CRUCIAL difference between Roman Catholicism and Biblical Christianity.
I wish you all to reconsider your so-called “conversions”.
Hi Richard,
I’d be very curious to know what the REAL and CRUCIAL difference is?
Justification by faith alone?
Sola Scriptura?
Unconditional election?
Effectual calling?
Perseverance?
Thanks,
David
David,
Your curiosity has probably brought you to knock at the right door. Just think about it. You entitled your page “How John Calvin Made me a Catholic “. I would rather propose you: How Jesus Christ made me a Christian.”
You know what matters is not what we believe, but what God says we should believe.
You challenged me, as it were, asking if it was
“Justification by faith alone?
Sola Scriptura?
Unconditional election?
Effectual calling?
The answer is NONE of them. Jesus Christ is very clear in His word and the highest challenge is for you to prove that Roman Catholicism is what the Bible REALLY teaches. The answer is this. Roman Catholicism is none other than deception. Of course, you could say the same to me. But if you want to be challenged, just ask your questions and I will ask you some. I started the process; and here is my first question.
When you were Protestant, what had you understood regarding being born again and tell me if you are now. If yes, how God does this within the heart?
Perseverance?
Hi Rich,
Thanks for writing. You’ll find a lot of interesting material on the site addressing this and other questions.
If you’d like to get a detailed examination of my thoughts on being born again, try this article:
But, I’m still curious. You said I had missed the crucial difference between Catholics and Bible believing Christians. What, in your view, is that difference?
Thanks,
David
David,
Thanks for your quick reply. You said:
“But, I’m still curious. You said I had missed the crucial difference between Catholics and Bible believing Christians. What, in your view, is that difference?”
The answer is in my questions. If a man is not born again, or born from above as says the Greek, he cannot enter or even see the kingdom of God.
I could add this. If you became a catholic through Calvin, it is not really important. But if you become a Christian through Christ, now you will be in “business”, if I may use such an expression. Forget the religion, David, keep looking at Christ and His Word. By the way, the place of Tradition in Roman Catholicism is not only a hindrance to the faith, but it is condemned by Jesus himself. You thought about that?
And what about the Pope or Mary as for their ranks in the faith. Did you get that from the Bible? If so, you just misread it.
No offense.
Richard
Hi Richard,
Thanks for writing. I find your remark, “if you become a Christian through Christ” a bit condescending. Obviously, the title of the article – “How John Calvin made me a Catholic” – is a bit rhetorical. There is a lot more to my journey – as I’m sure there is to yours – than my academic study of a 16th century theologian. But it’s supposed to be an attention grabber.
Do you really think I would call myself a Christian without reference to Christ?
I became a Catholic precisely because I wanted a relationship with Christ, and precisely because Christ directs me to Catholic tradition. If you’d like to discuss this further, I’m open.
Thanks,
David
David,
Thanks as always. Let us start the discussion with this. Just write me in your own words (not many), how do you see the following in the Bible:
– Tradition as Roman Catholicism understands it. Is it on par with Scripture? If so, how and if not what about it then?
– The Pope as the vicar of Christ and Mary as a woman we could pray. Do you believe Mary remained sinless to the end of her life. Was she sinless to begin with as your religion teaches?
In other words, where do you find these things in the revelation of God and how it is supported in there. Forget the history of the Church in its first century, but let us look at them from the very foundation of God’s Word. Where are they taught?
Richard
Hi Richard (#778),
I apologize for butting in if my entrance into the conversation is undesired, but I was interested in the below comments:
I’m guessing you are referring to Mark 7:1-23 in your suggestion that Jesus condemns the role of Tradition in Catholicism. However, Saint Paul in 2 Thess. 2:15 encourages the faithful to “hold fast to the traditions you received from us, either by our word or by letter.” I think, therefore, that we may have to do some deeper reflection on what tradition Jesus is condemning, and what tradition Paul is praising. Jesus says that the Pharisees and teachers of the law “nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down,” which suggests to me He is condemning the Pharisees for using tradition as a means of contradicting or circumventing scriptural teaching, rather than a wholesale rejection of Tradition as an authority on the conscience. Indeed, in Matthew 23:2 Jesus refers to the Pharisees and teachers of the law as sitting on a “seat of Moses” that grants them a level of authority to which people should “do everything they tell you.” The fact that Jesus encourages people to submit to the Pharisees and teachers of the law because of Moses’ seat, indicates that Jesus viewed certain traditions as binding on the conscience.
As for the Pope and Mary, I presume David, like myself, finds substantial biblical warrant for the roles the two respectively play within the Catholic faith. To claim that David and I are “misreading” the Bible suggests to me that you believe (1) we are not as intelligent or well-read as you and that is why we have come to a different conclusion, or (2) you have an authority to interpret scripture that we do not possess, which gives you the ability to effectively discern true and false teaching. Either way, I don’t find it a very persuasive line of reasoning, since both remain unproven. You might do better to find the appropriate articles on this website where the Papacy and Marian devotion are addressed, and express your disagreement with their conclusions. I’m sure folks will be happy to engage with you on those subjects. God bless, Casey
Casey,
As you have surely the right to comment on what I said to David. Nonetheless, I would like to read David has to say about it since it is to him I asked the questions. As for your argumentation, you have not really made a good case for your belief in Tradition, Pope and Mary. A better knowledge in historical and cultural background of the texts you mentioned is in order to argue at another level.
I am not telling you that you are not intelligent enough, but you are surely misreading what the apostle Paul had in mind when he wrote what he wrote. Just read the context please and see what he had in mind when he talked about the “traditions”.
Hi Richard (#782),
You said,
You may claim I have not made a good case for the scriptural evidence of Tradition as binding on the conscience, but simply asserting it without explanation or evidence is not particularly helpful to me or anyone reading this dialogue. Would you mind explaining why you think my assessment of Jesus’ teaching on tradition vis-a-vis the “seat of Moses” is inadequate?
You also said,
Again, this is more assertions without any actual evidence. I just read again Paul’s statements in 2 Thess 2, and it certainly sounds like he is exhorting the faithful to consider apostolic oral tradition as binding on the conscience. blessings, Casey
Casey,
Let us wait for David’s reply and I will take care of your question after. You will clearly see what I mean by “you misread” or things like that. This is not an attack, but just a way of saying that there is more to say about these passage to find the real intent of the biblical author.
Richard,
As per your comment, #780 – Let me address the tradition question first.
Whenever we have disputes about the content or meaning of the Christian revelation, I think the most important question we can ask is, “What provision (if any) did Christ make for resolving such disputes? What provision (if any) did he make for the authoritative transmission of Christian faith?”
And, when I pose that question, I see that Christ nowhere directs us to the 66 book Protestant Canon of Scripture as the authoritative means of transmitting the faith or resolving questions of its interpretation.
There are a few places in the historical record where Christ explicitly addresses the transmission of the faith:
Luke 10:16: Whoever hears you, hears me.
Matt. 28: (to the 11) – Go there fore into all nations, teaching everything I have commanded you, . . . and I will be with you.”
John 20:21: As the Father sends me, I send you . . . Whoever’s sins you forgive are forgiven.
Luke 22: 19: “Do this in remembrance of me.”
Regarding this last command, Paul tells us that this remembrance is, in part, a form of proclamation – that is, a means of transmitting the gospel: “For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”
Finally, Paul considers this transmission to be authoritative, and perpetual, and a prime example of what Catholics mean by tradition: “The tradition which I received from the Lord, and handed on to you . . .” (1 corinthians 11:23)
Then there is the matter of interpreting that deposit of faith.
What provision do we find in Scritpure:
Acts 15 – the principle of apostolic authority, in council, as the voice of the Holy Spirit.
And, the principle of catholicity: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice–nor do the churches of God.” (1 Cor. 11:16)
So, all in all, I find the concept of tradition to be very biblical. But I find the notion of “Sola Scriptura,” defined as the final authority of the 66 book Protestant canon – to be very unbiblical.
Thanks,
David
David,
Thanks for your reply. Please take care of some important things. If one asks
if Roman Catholicism is right with their practices or traditions, I would say
the following.
The issue concerning any church and its practices should be “Is this
biblical?” Or the least we should say is: “Are our traditions
are minimally backed up by what the Word of God says?” If a teaching is
Biblical (taken in context), it should be embraced. If it is not, it should be
rejected. God is more interested in whether a church is doing His will and
obeying His Word first and foremost than whether it can trace a line of
succession back to Jesus’ apostles. Jesus was very concerned about abandoning
the Word of God to follow the traditions of men (Mark 7:7). I know you
read this verse in a different way, but just keep reading.
Traditions are not inherently invalid…there are some good and
valuable traditions. Again, the issue must be whether a doctrine,
practice, or tradition is Biblical. How then does the Roman Catholic
Church compare with the teachings of the Word of God?
Salvation:The Roman Catholic Church teaches that
salvation is by baptismal regeneration and is maintained through the Catholic
sacraments unless a willful act of sin is committed that breaks the state of
sanctifying grace. The Bible teaches that we are saved by grace which is
received through simple faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), and that good works are the
result of a change of the heart wrought in salvation (Ephesians 2:10; 2
Corinthians 5:17) and the fruit of that new life in Christ (John 15).
Assurance of salvation:The Roman Catholic Church teaches
that salvation cannot be guaranteed or assured. 1 John 5:13 states that the
letter of 1 John was written for the purpose of assuring believers of the
CERTAINTY of their salvation. If one does not see this truth here, there is
a big problem in his reading.
Good Works:The Roman Catholic Church states that
Christians are saved by meritorious works (beginning with baptism) and that
salvation is maintained by good works (receiving the sacraments, confession of
sin to a priest, etc.) The Bible states that Christians are saved by grace
through faith, totally apart from works (Titus 3:5; Ephesians 2:8-9; Galatians
3:10-11; Romans 3:19-24). Now, yes, Catholics would tell us that they are saved
by the sacrifice of Christ, but the moment Christ’s sacrifice has to deal with
others “necessary things”, he has not the ultimate privilege of being the savior
in his work.
Baptism:In the New Testament baptism is ALWAYS practised
AFTER saving faith in Christ. Baptism is not the means of salvation; it is faith
in the Gospel that saves (1 Corinthians 1:14-18; Romans 10:13-17). The Roman
Catholic Church teaches baptismal regeneration of infants, a practice never
found in Scripture. The only possible hint of infant baptism in the Bible
that the Roman Catholic Church can point to is that the whole household of the
Philippian jailer was baptized in Acts 16:33. However, the context nowhere
mentions infants. Acts 16:31 declares that salvation is by faith. Paul spoke to
all of the household in verse 32, and the whole household believed (verse 34).
This passage only supports the baptism of those who have already believed, not
of infants.
Prayer:The Roman Catholic Church teaches Catholics to
not only pray to God, but also to petition Mary and the saints for their
prayers. Contrary to this, we are taught in Scripture to only pray to God
(Matthew 6:9; Luke 18:1-7).
Priesthood:The Roman Catholic Church teaches that there
is a distinction between the clergy and the “lay people”, whereas the New
Testament teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:9). It does
not mean that elders, pastors or bishops have the same role or function in the
local church, but as for their right to be priest, this is attributed to all
believers.
Sacraments:The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a
believer is infused with grace upon reception of the sacraments. Such teaching
is nowhere found in Scripture. If so, where does it say it?
Confession:The Roman Catholic Church teaches that unless
a believer is hindered, the only way to receive the forgiveness of sins is by
confessing them to a priest. Contrary to this, Scripture teaches that confession
of sins is to be made to God (1 John 1:9).
Mary:The Roman Catholic Church teaches, among other
things, that Mary is the Queen of Heaven, a perpetual virgin, and the
co-redemptress who ascended into heaven. In Scripture, she is portrayed as an
obedient, believing servant of God, who became the mother of Jesus. None of the
other attributes mentioned by the Roman Catholic Church have any basis in the
Bible. The idea of Mary being the co-redemptress and another mediator between
God and man is not only extra-biblical (found only outside of Scripture), but is
also unbiblical (contrary to Scripture). Acts 4:12 declares that Jesus is the
only redeemer and there is no passage which gives us the notion of a
co-redemptor or “tress”. 1 Timothy 2:5 proclaims that Jesus is the only mediator
between God and men. And here, the context of this verse is precisely
the salvation of men.
Many other examples could be given. These issues alone clearly identify the
Catholic Church as being unbiblical. Every Christian denomination has
traditions and practices that are not explicitly based on Scripture.
That is why Scripture must be the standard of Christian faith and practice. The
Word of God is always true and reliable. The same cannot be said of
church tradition. Our guideline is to be: “What does Scripture say?”
(Romans 4:3; Galatians 4:30; Acts 17:11). 2 Timothy 3:16-17 declares,
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking,
correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be
thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
Finally, you mentioned that Sola Scriptura has no biblical foundation. You
have now the burden of proving how it is unbliblical and why it is
unbiblical?
Richard
Hi Richard,
Why should we begin with the question: “Is it Biblical?” Instead of asking, “How does Jesus want us to resolve conflicts about the Christian faith?”
As per my previous comment, I don’t think Jesus ever told us that “Is it Biblical” is a sufficient basis for resolving those conflicts. Instead, Christ directed us to tradition (of which Scripture is a part). Furthermore, – most conflicts over Christian faith are almost always conflicts over Biblical interpretation which makes “Is it biblical” a fairly unworkable framework.
-David
Thanks for your reply David. Now, let me take some of your thoughts one by one.
You said:
“Why should we begin with the question: “Is it Biblical?” Instead of asking, “How does Jesus want us to resolve conflicts about the Christian faith?”
To this first question, the answer is very clear. Apart from God’s Word no man has any divine authority to assert anything whatsoever. The proof of it is this. Even to back up the very notion of admissible traditions, Roman Catholicism uses biblical passages. It shows something here. To find a credible conviction, the Bible is the ultimate authority and not Tradition; and that, even for Catholics. To say otherwise is the most obvious inconsistency. Let me tell it in another way. If you had no biblical passage to back up your convictions on traditions, you would have what to make your case? Nothing! Therefore, the Bible has to sanction something to make it relevant and authoritative. There is no other way out.
You said:
“I don’t think Jesus ever told us that “Is it Biblical” is a sufficient basis for resolving those conflicts.”
Specific words have not always to be mentioned to make them truths. Two simple examples. First, the very word “Trinity” is mentioned nowhere in the Bible and we both believe in its truth. Isn’t it? Second, Jesus never said in an explicit way: “I am God” or “I am equal with God”. However, we do know that he said these two truths using different words. So, to say that Jesus never told us “Is it Biblical” to make this truth necessary to be authoritative does not deal with the problem at hand here. Jesus had not to tell us such a thing to make it necessary. Christianity functions under a revelation, otherwise we would have known nothing from God, right? So, God has to speak to make in the truth. Jesus said one day: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples,” (John 8:31 – ESV)
You said:“Instead, Christ directed us to tradition (of which Scripture is a part).”
This is typically Roman Catholicism which says that Scripture is a part of tradition toward which Jesus directs us, but surely not Jesus himself. Now, you could use my previous argument to tell me:
“Richard, you have just said yourself that Jesus has not to say something specifically to make it true.” But here, there is a big difference. Nowhere, explicitly or implicitly do we read in the whold Bible that the Word of God is a part of tradition. Nowhere! In other words, Roman Catholics want to be authoritative without being only biblical. That’s the main difference between Roman Catholicism and Real and Authentic Christianity. The Roman Church too often needs to add things to the Word of God. The apostle John well said:“Everyone who goes on ahead and does not abide in the teaching of Christ,does not have God. Whoever abides in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.” (2 John 9 – ESV)
Hi Richard,
I asked you why you assume Scripture is the only or primary authority by which to resolve theological conflict.
You answered that “apart from God’s word, no man has any divine authority to assert anything whatsoever.”
And, your proof is that Catholics uses biblical passages to support their notion of Church and tradition.
I assume that by “God’s word” you mean Sacred Scripture. If I’m wrong, please let me know.
If I understand you correctly, then you are begging the question. (That is, assuming what you have to demonstrate.)
Because the point at issue between us is precisely whether or not there are any divine authorities apart from Scripture.
I say that there are. You dissent.
Your argument is that Catholics must rely on Scripture in order to sustain their case for tradition.
This is not true, actually, but would not prove your point if it were true.
If I rely on Scripture as an authentic historical witness to the life and teaching of Jesus, this by no means entails that I accept Scripture as the sole or primary rule of faith.
But, in point of fact, Scripture is not the only historical witness to the life and teachings of Jesus, or to the Christian doctrine of Church authority and tradition.
So, back to my original point. As a Christian, I think my primary concern is with what Jesus did and taught. When I look at how Jesus instructed us to hand on the Christian faith, he always pointed us to a body of oral teaching and ritual, transmitted by authorized interpreters. He never mentioned a completed canon of Scripture, let alone assigning final, interpretive authority to such Scriptures.
As to your subsequent points about the Trinity and Scripture as part of tradition – I could not agree more with your premises.
You are absolutely correct – Scripture nowhere instructs us to refer to God as a Trinity. Nor does Scripture identify itself as part of the deposit of Christian faith.
The only reason I believe either of these doctrines is that I have learned them from tradition.
-David
David,
You are “crystal clearly” confusing two things when you read me. You do not seem to see the difference between what is true and what is authoritative. The tradition has “truly” taught different things, but are all those things authoritative, that is according to what God wants us to believe? That’s the problem of Roman Catholicism.
Hi Richard,
I’m not confusing truth and authority. In fact, my view is predicated upon the distinction.
Because I’m a Catholic, I believe that Scripture is true – infallibly true. Inerrant. But, I don’t believe Scripture possesses the authority you ascribe to it.
It does not have authority as the final arbiter in theological disputes because God has not given it this authority.
My question to you (and to all Protestants) is “Where has God indicated that we are to regard the completed Protestant Canon of Scripture as the final arbiter in matters of theological controversy?” To the best of my ability to ascertain, there is nothing in the data of revelation or history to indicate that God assigns this role to Holy Scripture.
The teaching authority of the Church, by contrast, is something that is explicitly taught by Jesus.
Thanks,
David
Your question is:
“Where has God indicated that we are to regard the completed Protestant Canon of Scripture as the final arbiter in matters of theological controversy?”
Precisely here:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Now, watch this carefully. It is crystal clear in this passage that God Himself made Scriptures with no equal to make a man “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished unto all works”. If something else (like the Tradition) needs to be added to make a man “perfect” it boils down to declare Paul’s declaration false or at the very least incomplete, a thing the text excludes automatically by the virtue of its content and the author’s intent well read in the context of this chapter. Or, if Paul was right, and he was in account of the inspiration of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures have to be enough and sufficient to make a man “perfect” as God intended him to become. There is no way out from this passage.
It is very poor exegesis and hermeneutics if you do not see it in this passage. By the way, the Greek words for “perfect” and thoroughly furnished” have much more to say as for their real meanings. I need to tell you that one of my fields of expertise is hermeneutics. Moreover, I know very well what Roman Catholicism is all about having been one for many years and as for its hermeneutics it is not very strong. Besides, it is well known that many articles in their Councils and their Catechisms are in sheer contradictions in so many points with the Word of God. Too much so, that they had to reformulate their theological viewpoints in many ways through the
years. As for the Bible, it has always been the same and will never change. Traditions are not inspired, but the Word of God is.
Ponder on it please. Just take time to think before replying too fast to this. You are very much deceived by your religion and its blasphemies, let alone all the things we can learn from former high ranked Catholics who revealed what was behind the Vatican and its practices in the past and still today. This is terrible to learn from them. I know personally a man who was high ranked in the Vatican under John Paul II and he left the Church of Rome to become a real Christian many years ago. He held many conferences here in Canada where I live and he revealed to us many secret things kept hidden to the average Catholics. You would be shocked to know what is behind this system built by men. More than that. When I asked him: “Brother, are you aware of many Catholics could be troubled by what you reveal to us today?” He said: “I know they are and I brought to Christ 40 priests out of Rome and two others who were Cardinals.” He added to me this stunning declaration: “None of them was able to destroy or argue my sayings with power, for all of them knew that I said the truth as I was the Director of the Holy Office in the Vatican for many years.”
I just pray that God will open your eyes to the truth and to that, you will have to study more the Word of God and not the words of men who added to the Word of God thinking that these other sources are on par with God’s Word. Very sad indeed.
The thing I see is this. Thinking you know much about your religion, I just see that you do not know of it what you should. Very sad indeed…
Your question is:
“Where has God indicated that we are to regard the completed Protestant Canon of Scripture as the final arbiter in matters of theological controversy?”
Precisely here:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
Now, watch this carefully. It is crystal clear in this passage that God Himself made Scriptures with no equal to make a man “perfect” and “thoroughly furnished unto all works”. If something else (like the Tradition) needs to be added to make a man “perfect” it boils down to label Paul’s declaration false or at the very least incomplete, a thing the text excludes automatically by the virtue of its content and the author’s intent well read in the context of this chapter. Or, if Paul was right, and he was in account of the inspiration of the Word of God, the Holy Scriptures have to be enough and sufficient to make a man “perfect” as God intended him to become. There is no way out from this passage.
It is very poor exegesis and hermeneutics if you do not see it in this passage. By the way, the Greek words for “perfect” and thoroughly furnished” have much more to say as for their real meanings. I need to tell you that one of my fields of expertise is hermeneutics. Moreover, I know very well what Roman Catholicism is all about having been one for many years and as for its hermeneutics it is not very strong. Besides, it is well known that many articles in their Councils and their Catechisms are in sheer contradictions in so many points with the Word of God. Too much so, that they had to reformulate their theological viewpoints in many ways through the
years. As for the Bible, it has always been the same and will never change. Traditions are not inspired, but the Word of God is.
Ponder on it please. Just take time to think before replying too fast to this. You are very much deceived by your religion and its blasphemies, let alone all the things we can learn from former high ranked Catholics who revealed what was behind the Vatican and its practices in the past and still today. This is terrible to learn from them. I know personally a man who was high ranked in the Vatican under John Paul II and he left the Church of Rome to become a real Christian many years ago. He held many conferences here in Canada where I live and he revealed to us many secret things kept hidden to the average Catholics. You would be shocked to know what is behind this system built by men. More than that. When I asked him: “Brother, are you aware of many Catholics could be troubled by what you reveal to us today?” He said: “I know they are and I brought to Christ 40 priests out of Rome and two others who were Cardinals.” He added to me this stunning declaration: “None of them was able to destroy or argue my sayings with power, for all of them knew that I said the truth as I was the Director of the Holy Office in the Vatican for many years.”
I just pray that God will open your eyes to the truth and to that, you will have to study more the Word of God and not the words of men who added to the Word of God thinking that these other sources are on par with God’s Word. Very sad indeed.
The thing I see is this. Thinking you know much about your religion, I just see that you do not know of it what you should. Very sad indeed…
Hi Richard,
2 Timothy 3:16 does not address the point I raised.
We know from the context that the scriptures Paul has in mind are the Scriptures that Timothy has known “from infancy.” The only Scriptures that Greek-speaking Timothy would have known from infancy are the Texts of the LXX. (clearly not the NT). Are you suggesting that the LXX is the sufficient and final norm for Christian faith?
Second, as a Catholic, I am perfectly comfortable with what Paul says. Namley, The Old testament (LXX) is sufficient to perfect the Man of God for all ” ἔργον ἀγαθὸν.”
The phrase “Good work,” in the New Testament, refers to works of charity or almsgiving. (2 cor. 9, for example).
so, the question of transmitting and interpreting the Christian faith is just not in view here.
On the contrary, when Paul does address this question in the Pastorals (Titus 1; 1 Timothy 1, etc.) he entrusts it to Bishops, not to texts.
Finally, even if I thought your exegesis of this passage were correct (which I don’t), the text says nothing about the content of the new testament canon. If you believe that the content of the canon is part of the deposit of faith (which most Protestant confessions do), you are still going to need an authoritative tradition to arrive at that canon.
As to your priest friend in Canada, I have no independent way to verify his claims – or even to know what they are. And why should I even care (beyond normal christian charity for those involved) if there are all manner of scandals in Rome. This has nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus about transmitting the Christian faith. So Christ entrusted the job to a bunch of morons? He started that precedent with the 12 disciples. Why should he change now?
The point just has no relevance to the theological question at issue.
And, lastly, concerning my “deception.” I’m sure I am deceived about many things. Hoping not to be, of course.
Can you be sure that you are deceived in nothing?
Must be nice to have that personal gift of infallibility!
Thanks for your interest,
David
Richard,
Are you saying there are two Cardinals of the Catholic church who have become protestant? David is right, if that is true it does not really effect the question of whether Catholicism is true. Still I would be very interested in the names. There are only a few hundred cardinals in the world at any given time. I am unaware of any that have left the church. I would expect if one did it would be widely know. Like when an Anglican bishop becomes Catholic. Anyway, if you have any documentation for this claim it would be much appreciated. Otherwise it is just a man making big claims.
David, you said:
2 Timothy 3:16 does not address the point I raised.
Let me tell you something. If you read this text without taking into account what I have in mind, it is no wonder that you say that there is nothing to see here to address the point you raised. The reason I used 2 Tim. 3:16 has all to do with the issue at hand and here is why.
First, when Paul wrote to Timothy he wanted him to know that the Word of God was complete and sufficient (I am referring to this specific text of course). I know that Paul treated other issues as well in the rest of the epistle. However, this passage (3:16) deals with the inspiration of the Scripture. By definition, what is inspired must be perfect since it is from God that inspiration came and God is perfect, right?
Second, if what God says is right and inspired, and if what he inspired tells us that this is given to make one “perfect”, what can you add to it?
Third, you referred to the fact that Paul had in mind the Scriptures of the Old Testament since he was writing in a time where the NT did not exist yet in its final form. You are right. But by virtue of inspiration, we do know that the NT is inspired as well as the OT, right? For Paul, the words he was writing to Timothy referred to the known texts of the time (OT), but for us there is no problem to add the NT in the inspired texts since the NT is just the continuation of the OT in its fulfillment. Even the words of Jesus could not be other than inspired since he was the living incarnate word of God, the Logos (John 1:1). It would be nonsense to say that ONLY the OT was inspired and not the New. And I think you have no problem with the fact that the NT is inspired as well as the Old was. Right?
Fourth,the question remains the same as previously mentioned in another post. What is the basis to affirm that other Scritpures than the OT and the NT might be inspired? The apostolic era was unique in history and once it is done, the rest is words of men, even if some of them may be good and necessary for us to interpret correctly the Sacred Texts. But they are not inspired as the OT and NT were. The burden of proof for those who believe otherwise is very heavy on their shoulders, for they have to prove here how they could make a solid and compelling case to prove the opposite.
At the end of the day, the problem is just this David. Do you know other things (texts) inspired by God than the biblical revelation? Unless you place the Tradition on the same level than the Bible as for its inspiration!!!!???? If so, then the case is closed in our discussion since we will not be able to talk the same language.
It was nice to have this discussion with you, even if useless.
May the God of the Scriptures enlighten your heart so that you may see the light of the sufficiency of inspiration to save your heart and to remain in the truth. Jesus says:
“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
And here, it is clear that Jesus had in mind not the future Tradition of the Church of Rome as it is today, but the Word of God alone (Old and New Testaments). Otherwise, Jesus would have been praying for us (his disciples and all the future Christians by extension) to be sanctified by a partial authoritative source than the Word of God.
Moreover, Jesus said:
“Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”
And what words was he referring to? Surely not those contained in the Tradition.
Of course, you believe otherwise, but you are wrong.
By the way, you said:
“Must be nice to have that personal gift of infallibility!”
You can rejoice since “your Pope” claims to have this so-called “infallibility”. Pure joke and blasphemy in God’s eye!
I really wonder what you believed and understood in the Bible when you were in Protestantism….!!! Probably not much if anything.
Hi Richard,
You have put your finger on a key issue.
Your argument is that only Scripture is inspired, therefore Scripture (alone) must be the rule of faith, the final authority to regulate Christian life and practice.
I agree with your premise (only Scripture is inspired); I disagree with your conclusion.
Catholics also believe that only Scripture is inspired. Catholics do not believe that tradition possesses the attribute of inspiration. Neither do the pronouncements of the Magisterium.
So, we agree on that much.
But you make this assumption: If an authority possesses the attribute of inspiration, it must, of necessity, be what God intends to rule the Church as a final authority.
Similarly, you assume that if an authority lacks the attribute of inspiration, then it cannot function as a rule of faith, a final arbiter in matters theological.
But I don’t see either of these assumptions supported by Scripture, reason, or history.
Clearly, Scripture itself shows that the infant Church did not rely on Scripture alone to make binding theological judgments.
The apostles, in Acts 15, met in council and declared, “It seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us. . . ” And then issued binding commands. (What they bound on earth was bound in heaven, yes?)
And, logically, the argument : “Scripture is inspired; therefore God intends it to be the rule of faith” is just a non sequitur.
Finally, I wonder why you find the need to make so many personal and insulting remarks. If you wonder what I believed as a Protestant, why not ask me? Why call me an imbecile, instead?
I’m curious – in your religion, do you believe that insulting people who disagree with you is a virtuous or praiseworthy act?
Thanks again for commenting,
David
David,
I noticed that there is always people who take an attack on a system as a personal one. Granted, I attacke the Roman Catholic system because falsehood will always need to be rebuked by the truth. Where did you see, in my post, that I labeled you as an “imbecile”? Show me where it is written. If you can, I will apologize without any problem, but the problem is that you will not find such a name-calling. You react like a man who is personally attacked when I am rejecting your religion. Just take care of it please. I attack nobody here.
You admitted that the Scriptures alone are inspired. Now, we must take some time to think about an important truth. The inspiration is from God and not from man. By definition, if it is inspired from God, it is precisely because God knew that men would need an objective truth outside of them, without errors. I presuppose you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible as well. If not, we have another problem. But the only logical conclusion is this. If God cannot lie or err in what He says as a perfect Being, it goes without saying that ONLY the Scriptures are without error, hence inerrant. Right?
For the rest, every time we deal with the authority of Scriptures you refer to what the Roman Church says or believes. Therefore, the bottom line is this. The problem with Roman Catholicism is not, first, its doctrine of the Scriptures, even if it is defective, but its doctrine of the Church. If this is true, and it is, all things must be settled from this premise. The true Church of Christ received the Word of God instead of saying the Roman Church controls the Word of God as your religion teaches to its members. If it turns the other way around, we are in deep trouble.
Now, many think that way:
The Canon of Scriptures has been established or formulated by the Church.
With this saying, they strongly believe that what the Roman Church says, God says. But it is rather a smokescreen to say the least to speak that way. Since God has always had in His plan to create the Church of Jesus Christ on earth, it follows that His preordained plan was in motion long time before these things appear on earth. And since the Word of God was the “Logos” and since this “Logos” took the flesh of a man (John 1:14) in Jesus Christ, it follows also that the Word of God (Christ) precedes the Bible as a book. Even Pope Francis said it recently.
Now, since the Word of God (Jesus) precedes the Bible as a book, it is also logical to affirm that the Word of God precedes the Church as well. Besides, Jesus said that he would build his Church and not that the Church would build her Christ.
From there, we must obligatory say the following. If the Church allegedly established the Canon (as Rome says), it is more accurate to say that the Holy Spirit imposed His Word to the Church instead of saying that the role of the Church was to determine what was inspired and what was not. It is God’s Spirit who decided what was inspired, not the Church as Rome says. In other words, if the Church compiled the canonical books it is because the Holy Spirit led her to do so. However, to recognize the Apocrypha as inspired books is another issue, for we can see many inconsistencies in them contradicting what is said in the other 66 books. But this is another subject.
Finally, all things boil down to assert this. The problem of Rome is its doctrine of the Church well before to speak of its doctrine of the Holy Scriptures. You want to clear up theological problems basing your answers and arguments on a defective ecclesiastical foundation. It cannot work! This is as simple as that.
Randy and Richard,
The other strange thing is how someone can have been “Director of the Holy Office” under Pope John Paul II. The “Holy Office” has been called the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith since December 1965. Even before then, I don’t know of any title “Director of the Holy Office.” To my knowledge, there used to be a Cardinal Secretary, then an Assessor. Since 1965 there’s been a Cardinal Prefect, then a Secretary. So it’s difficult to know what to make of your reportage of your acquaintance’s claims, Richard. It may be that something has been garbled in transmission.
best,
John
In response to post # 800, there is no inconisistency in what I said earlier. At the conference I attended, we were told that “The Holy Office” was the former name of what is called today “The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith” since December 1965.
Now, let me add something that nobody of you knows. The conference speaker told us a practice kept very secretely to the whole world and much more to those in Roman Catholicism. Here it is:
“The moment a member of the high ranked clergy or employee in the Vatican left the Church, his name is considered as never having been a part of its members. So, it is no wonder that you cannot find any name of former Cardinals or Bishops who left the Roman Church to become Christians in the Protestant Church. This is their policy and it is sheer hypocrisy to hide it to the world. Why do they act that way? Very simple. They know very well that if it were known to people, it would be a terrible scandal in their Church and its foundation would run the risk to crumble and collapse. But doing so, and keeping things secret, they work hard to avoid this calamity.”
Moreover, the former bishop told us another interesting fact. When Pope John the First died, did you know that he was killed by a Nun during his sleep? Most if not all in the Vatican will tell you that it is forgery and lie, but it remains the truth. More than that. There is a man, a former Jesuit priest, by the name of Alberto Rivera, who became a Protestant long time ago and when he left and began to divulge all the secrets of Rome to others, he was threatened of death, and do you know who was the one in the Vatican who signed the document to kill him? It was the very man I heard in the conference. He admitted before us all that he was the one behind this killing project. How can a man could tell us such a thing if it were not true? What would be the goal to reveal that he was involved in such a demonic plot if it were not true?
Dear friends on this blog. Being Catholics prevent you all to know in what devilish system you are involved. And I tell you the truth. There is no question that Satan will be working very hard to make you believe that I am not credible man as I reveal you these things.
You are free to believe me or not, but eternity will show you that I was right. God will have the last say on it, do not worry.
Hi Richard,
I’m not offended if you attack Catholicism. I’m not really offended if you attack me. And I certainly don’t take it personally if you air your grievances.
I was asking about your statement: “I really wonder what you believed and understood in the Bible when you were in Protestantism….!!! Probably not much if anything.”
I’m not offended by this. But I don’t see how you can construe this as simply “attacking the Roman System.” This is a statement directed against me personally. You make a judgment about my knowledge of Protestantism, asserting that I must not have understood it if I became a Catholic. The implication is that – no matter how much I might have studied the Bible or Protestant theology – I cannot have understood what I read or heard. This is to say that I am either operating in bad faith, or I’m an idiot.
Instead of simply asserting this kind of invective, how about asking me what I understood and why I became Catholic?
But anyway, back to our discussion.
You say, ” If God cannot lie or err in what He says as a perfect Being, it goes without saying that ONLY the Scriptures are without error, hence inerrant. Right?”
No, that doesn’t follow. Inerrancy does not depend on Inspiration. There are many, many judgments that can be without error – and can be known to be without error – that do not depend on inspiration.
Valid, formal reasoning, for example, can be known to be without error. (Modus ponens, modus tollens, etc.)
Also – incorrigible statements like “I feel pain” can be known with certainty.
And, of course, theological judgments that are non-inspired but guaranteed by divine authority could also be known to be true.
Thus, if God said, “Whatever this deliberative body declares to be true, is true” – then we would have grounds to hold to the teaching of such a body, even if it’s declarations lacked the attribute of inspiration.
Inspiration is one mode of infallibility. There is no reason to think it is the only one.
My original point was that we need to follow the teaching of Jesus regarding theological authority.
In response, you have made a number of assertions about the suitability of tradition, the nature of biblical inspiration, and the character of the Roman Church. You have not made any argument to the effect that we should or should not follow the teaching of Jesus regarding theological authority. Nor have you produced any argument to the effect that Christ enjoins us to regard the 66 book Protestant canon as the final arbiter in Christian faith.
Should I take it that you do not believe the teaching of Jesus is the proper point of reference for determining the nature of theological authority?
Thanks,
David
Hi Richard,
You wrote: “You are free to believe me or not, but eternity will show you that I was right. God will have the last say on it, do not worry.”
This is not an argument. It is a rather bold assertion – that you are right, because you are on God’s side.
Obviously, God will have the final word and eternity will unravel mysteries.
But here and now, we are left to applying our reason, I hope with God’s help, to the data of revelation and history. If you have a principled argument to make that Christ intends us to view the 66 book Protestant canon as the sole rule of faith – then please make it. But merely asserting that eternity will vindicate you is not much of an argument.
Thanks for commenting,
David
I thought that the tone of Richard’s comments were starting to sound like a Chick tract . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rivera
https://www.catholic.com/documents/the-nightmare-world-of-jack-t-chick
And then you realize… All of this is pointless, since no god exists and Joshua (a.k.a. Jesus) was merely one of the numerous false prophets who just happened to have the best marketing campaign. So much human energy wasted on myths and people arguing about them…
Friends,
This argument lasted almost as long as the history of the Church itself. I stopped reading at #300 because my wife said it was bedtime. I scrolled down to the end to see what the final answer was, but this is still not resolved. I feel a little cheated and very tired. Who wins? Catholics or Calvinists?
I want to affirm the importance of this article. I also partly found my way home to Rome through encountering reform theology. Few doctrines have troubled me more than predestination. Biblically, theologically and practically it never made sense to me, and was further abhorrent. The debate between reform thought and Arminianism at the same time was eating away at any hope of doctrinal harmony that I was harboring. Although I’m still far away from being comfortable with all catholic praxis and theology, there is a unity of thought that I was always missing in evangelicalism. Thankyou for this thoughtful and personal essay that I connect with closely.
I am Protestant, raised Anglican, married non-denominational, switched to Plymouth Brethren, and then to Presbyterian where I currently worship (in short, I am a confused Protestant :P ). A certain Catholic radio station in the area has gotten me looking once again into Catholicism in the past couple of weeks.
I tried reading Calvin’s Institutes last year and got through books one and two, but that was it for me. He struck me as being a vehemently angry man, proud, arrogant and almost violent!! I could read no further. I would question it as I read it, thinking, “How could this supposed bastion of “true Christianity” be such an angry, proud man?” It made NO sense to me. And now I read your article about his actions in Geneva and I am even more horrified! I had no idea! The same things struck me about Luther as well. :(
Please pray for me as I make this theological journey. I have always been drawn by something in the Catholic Churches, but my Protestant teachings have always been to thoroughly reject all that is Catholic. As I read the Church fathers though, they are most thoroughly Catholic! I feel like the whole fabric of my faith is being unravelled. I’m concerned for my adult children who have been raised Protestant. My conversion would probably throw them into a crisis of faith as well.
Thanks for your story though and your writings. I was a history major in university and have always loved the subject. I wish they would have taught us all these things in Bible college all those years ago though, but they too were taught through Protestant eyes. :/
Jennifer,
Thank you for the comment. We will pray for you. I think you are right in your assessment of Calvin. Reading Calvin was very eye opening for me. I’ve known people like him in my life – and they almost universally do not inspire me as examples of spiritual wisdom and grace. Calvin was a great orator, polemicist, and scholar. But he was not, in my view, a great Christian.
When I read the Gospels and the Church fathers, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church I find a continuity lacking in the protestant tradition. This was scary at first. But, ultimately, I realized that my discipleship and loyalty had to be to Christ, and not to my Presbyterian tradition. Why would I be loyal to Presbyterianism? I don’t even like the founder.
-David
Jennifer (#803
I am myself a Catholic, a convert (some 18 or so years ago) from Calvinism. I would advise, however, caution in judging a position by the character of those who espouse it. I think violent polemicism was rather the thing in the 16th Century. I think some of Calvin’s and Luther’s Catholic opponents were pretty … well, not in modern taste :-)
I never cease to be thankful to God for making me a Catholic. I do not for a moment wish to discourage you, and will add you to my prayers for specific persons struggling with the claims of the Church. I think the Catholic Church is the substantial presence of Christ in the world today. I myself was raised nothing, became a kind-of evangelical at age 27; Reformed at about 32; Catholic at around 53. I can empathise with your sense of journeying. Do not despair. He who would come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6). Seek His Face and He will not fail you.
jj
One of the things that struck me when I came to Lutheranism from Calvinism (and Arminianism before that) was the striking continuity, or even more so, the sameness and oneness of our Lutheran Confessions (www.bookofconcord.org) with that of the early church fathers. It also struck me as I learned about church history how the Roman Catholic tradition took many hundreds of years of man-made traditions to develop. Also the effect of secular politics on the formation of the Papacy and what it would eventually come by the late medieval period. I also noticed how, even among the doctrines that were developed that obscured the Gospel it was never totally lost in spite of the devil’s best efforts.
Jennifer, I would encourage you to thoroughly investigate Lutheranism from Confessional Lutheran sources before you judge it. You will not hear the truth about us and our Confession from any other source. The Evangelicals do not understand us, the Roman Catholics do not understand us, the Eastern Orthodox do not understand us, nor do the ELCA understand us (and therefore do not know who or what it is they claim to be). The issues etc. radio program is a good start if you want to know about us. http://www.issuesetc.org
Hi Jason,
I appreciate your desire for continuity with the Patristic tradition. But what do you make of the glaring absence of sola fide/imputed righteousness from the Patristic account of redemption?
When you read Justin, Tertullian, Augustine, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Cyril, Origen, etc. Do you really find simul iustus et peccator? Do you find Luther’s view of penance, or original sin? If so, you know that many Protestant historians do not see these things in antiquity. From Harnack to McGrath, Protestant students of early christian soteriology admit that Luther was an innovator. How do you reconcile that with your desire for continuity?
-David
I’ve only read briefly in the Church Fathers, Jason, but what I see so far, as sure as the sun rises each day, is the tenets of Catholicism. It’s hard NOT to see it. When I see them talking about confessing to a bishop or presbyter; or the the bishop, presbyter, deacon triad (which we had in the Anglican church as well); or the constant reminding against sin; and the constant reminding to continually do good works in love and charity; or the fact that they chastise those who think that the bread is not literally the flesh of Christ. And the one that has me pondering the most is how Christ in his final prayer literally harped on and on about unity in His body. I don’t mean that disrespectfully, but the number of times he said “one” is really something to wonder at. He KNEW there would be those who would come in and divide us. The Church Fathers also constantly warn and chastise against schism.
I know Luther and others had some very valid points against the behavior and excess of the Church back in the day. But I wonder now, if he came back and saw the Catholic Church today, if he would have any problem with it at all. I wonder if the points he made, and the changes he instituted were just an over-reaction to a bad time in history. Christ wants us as one, and how do we do that without returning?
I still have issues with some areas. I still tend to read Scripture with very Protestant eyes, but many of the passages the Protestants disagree with can be explained very simply in Catholicism. Mary is still a hangup of mine. :P Well, what else is new for a Protestant. I’m still not seeing clearly in regards to indulgences and a few other things, but that is probably my own limitations at the moment.
I’m not 100% swayed yet, but I’m seeing more and more holes in Protestantism which is making me seriously wonder.
John, thanks for the heads up. I wouldn’t assume that the Catholics of the day were very pleased with Luther, Knox, Henry VIII (nobody was :P) or Calvin. I imagine there were more than a few heated words. But these men started a schism that tore at the very fabric of Christ’s body and which, 500 years later, has yet to be healed. I wish they could have argued for accountability, simplification and clarification without getting up on those high horses of theirs, but that was probably more easily said then done.
I guess we can only pray for healing now, and obedience for those who are being led.
Jennifer (#812)
Sure, wasn’t saying anything one way or the other, only, first, that a pretty violent sort of polemic was quite common – and not only between Protestants and Catholics; between men who disagreed with each other generally – and, second, that you have to judge the thing based not on the character of its proponents, but on the thing itself.
One important thing about Calvin that made me a Catholic is that it was from Calvin (well, mostly from Calvinists :-)) that I became convinced of Church authority – that Christ expected us to obey “those who have the rule over us” (Hebrews 13:17). But of course somewhere around 1520 that line of authority was broken.
Nonetheless, this was only one component in my own decision. The fundamental thing was that I came to believe, as you have expressed in your comment, that Christ intended the Church to be one – that He had provided for that by establishing an organised Church that would be one.
And if the modern representative of that Church wasn’t the Catholic Church, what else was there??
I found three books of enormous help to me:
John Henry Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua
John Henry Newman’s Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine
Ronald Knox’s The Belief of Catholics
jj
@David and Jennifer, I see many glarring examples of imputed righteousness and jusfication by faith alone etc. as taught by the Lutheran Confessions in the Church Fathers. One that stands out particularly strong in Clement of Rome’s Epistle to the Corinthians. What is more important though is that it is in the Bible which was written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and contains absolutely no doctrinal error which cannot be said of the writings of the Church Fathers or Martin Luther or Calvin or any Bishop of Rome (unless you believe Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, which I am not sure Linus was not the first. Eusebius is a bit unclear on that so I will leave that up to personal opininion). I would encorage every Roman Catholic to actually read our Confession along with the Roman Catholic response to the Augsburg Confession and the Melancthon’s response to that. It’s like the Inigo Montoya, “You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means”.
@ Jennifer, Luther would still have a problem with the Papacy today because they still do not have Justification right. That is where the metal meets the road. Luther was not a moral reformer, he was trying to bring the church back to the scriptures and what it teaches. Moral reformers will always fail because Christians are still sinners until they die or Jesus comes back and we are changed “in the twinkling of an eye” as St. Paul says.
I have a question for all Roman Catholics who converted as adults from some other denomination of any kind. What passage or passages of Scripture did the Holy Spirit use to make you Roman Catholic?
Jason,
I could list many such passages of Scripture. The book of Romans was particularly influential, as I dug into Paul’s account of Christian righteousness. The Gospels were also enormously influential. But, you know, I don’t think Scripture is the only way that God communicates the gospel. St. Paul says that in the Eucharist “We proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” One need not read the Bible to come to a saving knowledge of Christ and his church.
-David
Very True
Interesting. I’ve read Clement. I remember him saying that we are justified by faith and not by works. Just like St. Paul says. But I don’t remember him explaining this in terms of the theory of imputation.
-David
Jason (re: #814)
We’ve discussed the passage in question in the soteriology section of our post on St. Clement.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
“One need not read the Bible to come to a saving knowledge of Christ “- David, true, but no one is saved without the Word of Christ. One must read or hear Law and Gospel or receive the Sacrament of Baptism to be converted. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ. As for Imputation, that is taught by Scripture clearly, Romans 1:17, Isaiah 45:24, 2 Corinthians 5:19-21, Psalm 32:2, Romans 5:13-19, Romans 4:6-22, James 2:23, Genesis 15:6, Romans 9:30, 1 Corinthians 1:30-31, Romans 10:4, Jeremiah 23:6, Isaiah 51:6, Isaiah 61:10, Romans 3:26, Philipians 3:9, Isaiah 45:24-25 More on imputation here: https://carm.org/dictionary-impute
Luther was a moral reformer in the sense that he stood against the corruption of the church.
Bryan, I just took a look at your link. You guys really are accrobats (not that I didn’t know that already). Glad to know Benedict XVI is a closet-Lutheran. Maybe that is the real reason he resigned. ;) I knew I liked him for some reason. :)
Hi Jason,
Of course, I’ve read these texts myself before. I don’t see imputation therein.
Would you like to take your strongest example, and explain why it can only be understood in light of the Protestant theory of imputation? I recommend you post it in one of our threads that discuss imputation.
How about here
-David
Pat, I understand what you mean, but that isn’t what the Reformation was primarily about. There were many, many moral reformers before Luther. The Lutheran Reformation was primarily about the authority of Scripture and the doctrine of Justification.
Jason (re: #823)
The personal attack is what people resort to when they cannot refute arguments. And personal attacks are not allowed here; see the posting guidelines. This site is for serious dialogue, i.e. engaging the evidence and argumentation, for the sake of resolving disagreements. Personal attacks do not help us resolve disagreements; they only further polarize persons presently divided.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason (#816),
Thanks for the question! I’m actually a “convert/revert” to the Catholic Church– having converted, initially, from a largely non-Christian background. For various reasons, however (all of which were mistaken, I now understand in retrospect), I left the Church after less than a year and a half and fell into skepticism and despair. When I came back to Christ (and/or when Christ drew me back to Himself!), it was as a sola Scriptura Protestant– first, Arminian, and then, a few years later, five-point Calvinist (Reformed Baptist).
I was *absolutely convinced* that the clear testimony of Scripture disproved Catholicism. Scripturally speaking, from the Gospels to Romans to James, the expositional preaching at my church, and the serious Bible study small groups in which I was involved, and my own personal study of Scripture showed to me, over and over, the seemingly clear truth of Sola Fide and imputed righteousness.
Now, to be sure, there were “problem passages,” particularly with some of Christ’s teachings that did not always seem to sound so much like the Reformed preaching at my church, and with James 2 on faith and works, which also did not sound very “Reformed”– but I had exegetical explanations that harmonized all of those “problem passages” with Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 and the other, more clearly “Reformed-sounding” sections of Scripture.. and so, I remained convinced of the basic correctness of Reformed Baptist Christianity. After all, every theological tradition has to harmonize certain passages with others– and even if I were somehow Scripturally wrong about five-point Calvinism (which I truly didn’t think to be the case, or I would not have remained in my church!), I was *definitely sure* that Catholicism had a very, very poor exegetical grounding, compared to “historic Reformed” Christianity or confessional Lutheran Christianity (my sister and brother-in-law are Missouri Synod Lutherans)!
How I began to have serious exegetical problems with, and doubts about, Sola Fide and imputed righteousness is a long story– but it suffices to say that they were *exegetical* problems and doubts. There was no personally disappointing series of events in my Protestant years that led me to doubt Reformed, confessional Protestantism. I was not secretly longing for something that I understood or felt to be lacking in Protestantism.
I did, after a number of years as a Protestant, begin to have troubling questions about why the early Church Fathers, even from the first and second centuries, seemed to understand Scripture and ecclesiology and Christian living in such “Catholic-sounding” ways.. and I questioned why those understandings persisted for so very long until Luther and Calvin rose up to say that Scripture “clearly teaches” other, non-Catholic understandings (Sola Fide, imputed righteousness, the non-existence of Purgatory, and so on).
At a certain point, after having months of intensive meetings with an elder at my church (in which I was hoping to ultimately prove to myself that Calvinistic Protestantism was still essentially Scripturally correct), I decided that I had to set aside all of my Protestant presuppositions, which which I had long approached and read Scripture, and try to study Scripture with “fresh eyes” and as little of a “theological lens” as possible. I knew one thing (two things, really)– I had to be ruthlessly honest with myself about where this very serious Biblical study took me *and* willing to count the cost of possibly having to leave Protestantism. That process of Scripture study played a very, very large role in leading me back to the Catholic Church. For how that could be the case, I invite you to listen to Jason Stellman’s interview here at CTC. His exegetical journey is similar, in many ways, to mine. https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/11/how-the-church-won-an-interview-with-jason-stellman/
I could give you so, so many Scripture passages and verses that, when consciously studied without “Protestant eyes,” led me away from Protestantism and back to the Catholic Church. However, just as I did when I was a Reformed Baptist, you would likely have answers to all or most of those passages and verses which would harmonize them with your theological tradition. As I wrote above, every tradition harmonizes *seemingly* conflicting passages– including Catholicism.
The question then becomes, where lies the *apostolic authority* (if it exists in the world today at all) to “authoritatively interpret* Scripture and Church tradition, and, thus, to define doctrine and dogma in *binding* ways? Which church still calls councils of Bishops from around the world to even make and hand down such definitive rulings? I have found only one such Church– and her name is the same as it was in 110 and 200 and 325 A.D., when the early Church Fathers wrote of her and called her “the Catholic Church.”
Jason re#816-
You wrote:
I am 36 years old. I am married wihth 5 children. I was received into the Church on the Easter Vigil of 2008. I grew up in a heavily Reformed Baptist environment. In my early 20s I attended a Methodist megachurch for a couple years. By the age of 24 I was back in a Baptist church, though. My wife and I simultaneously went through a period of discernment that ultimately led to our submission to Christ’s Church. For a little more specific background, for me PSA was essentially the Gospel itself. If a person denied PSA, that person wasn’t really grasping the essence of the Gospel message.
The Scriptural passages that changed my heart most profoundly were:
John 17:20-23
Reflecting upon this passage I remember thinking to myself “Why would Christ call for such a unity without providing the means for it?” Specifically, His reference to the unbelievers who would see our supernatural unity and thereby recognize who He is was especially troubling for me. In other words, it wasn’t strictly for believers’ sake that we’d enjoy supernatural unity- we were to be unified as a witness to Christ and His divinity. I realized that to the extent I was not living out the unity He called for, I was participating in a scandal that could, according to that prayer, further confuse the unbelieving world as to the identity of God’s Son.
John 6:25-69
Any comments I could make here would only detract from Christ’s words.
James 2:24
There are many ways that people can make this text mean the opposite of what it says. However, just the mere fact that people endeavor to do such a thing came across to me as questionable (at best). At it struck at the root of Penal Substitutionary Atonement.
Ephesians 3:10, 1st Timothy 3:15, Ephesians 5:32, Hebrews 13:17, Matthew 23:2-3, Matthew 18:15-17, Numbers 16:1-33
These passages paint a picture of church authority that I could not reconcile with the church structures in which I was raised.
I could certainly go on. However, those passages paint a general constellation of what led me, 100% by grace, to Christ’s Church.
blessings to you!
Jason,
I agree with you completely here. It is very important to realize that Luther was engaged in something completely novel, very, very different from all previous attempts to reform the Church. He worked out a nuanced theory to explain why and how God would allow the Church to fall into egregious theological, and not just moral, error. And, of course, it was theological error that all previous reformers had failed to detect. 1500 years of theological reflection and Bible study had failed to produce anything like Luther’s theory of law and gospel – except perhaps in the works of Marcion. It really was a very different kind of “Reformation.”
-David
David,
Do you think the powers that be that were in charge before and during the Protestant Reformation would have allowed a reformation that would have diminished their power? Of course not. The church at the time refused to engage the Protestant Reformers on theological issues and wanted to silence the Reformers so as to stay in power.
Jason re#816-
I converted two years ago at age 45 from a Reformed background. I would echo the verses/passages Herbert mentioned I would add all of the Gospels. Before my conversion I read the Gospels over and over again. In the Gospels are the words of Jesus (or as close as we can get via translation)who is God incarnate . When I studied what Our Lord and Savior said about our salvation, I saw faith, and works, and baptism, and the Eucharist, and love. It was deep and rich and multi-layered in a way that I couldn’t reconcile with sola fide. I realized what was really holding me back was my closely and dearly held assumptions rather than the words of Scripture.
Pat,
I’m really puzzled by your statement that the powers that be refused to engage the Reformers on theological grounds. I really have to beg to differ. There is so much Catholic theological literature from the 16th and 17th centuries on these issues that one could hardly read it all in a lifetime. Personally, I was deeply challenged by Francis de Sales polemic against Calvinism. Bellarmine’s disputations also come to mind. There were also plenty of inferior polemics that nonetheless engaged the Reformers on theological grounds – like Erasmus’s diatribe on free will, Sadoleto’s address to Geneva, Eck’s Leipzig disputation. And, to be sure, the Council of Trent was a massive engagement with the theological issues – painstaking and very thorough. Luther and karlstadt were allowed to air their views publicly and before academic audiences. The Reformation in Switzerland included many public debates. I’ve read the minutes.
Now, once the Reformation was established, this was another matter. Public disputation was not allowed in Calvin’s Geneva, for example, where any hint of Catholic sympathy was punished by civil magistrates as well as theological authority. Lutheran and Anglican regimes also punished dissent. Calvin once wrote to King Edward urging him to suppress Catholicism with the Sword – something the English monarchs became very good at.
-David
David,
i’m surprised. What did church leaders want Luther to do at the Diet of Worms? What did they ask him to do?
We can also talk about Jan Huss.
Could somebody explain simply, in laymen’s terms, what you mean by imputation; and then how the Catholic belief differs from that?
Thanks! (Keep it simple. I’m not a theologian by any standards.)
To Jason and anyone else interested,
The philosopher Robert C. Koons, an erstwhile Missouri (i.e. Confessional) Lutheran turned Catholic, has made a long personal essay—book length, really—available on his website providing the intellectual reasons why he chose to become Catholic. As expected, the doctrinal pillars of sola fide and sola scriptura are discussed at great length. Google “Robert C. Koons Case for Catholicism” and you’ll find it without any trouble.
All the best.
Jason (#816)
The way you have phrased the question presupposes that one knows in advance (a) what writings are Scripture, (b) that those writings are authoritative, in the sense that if I know what they require, I must obey, and (c) that I know I can work out with certainty what they require.
I had to start by realising that precisely the idea of starting from Scripture to find the Church was not possible. The authority of Scripture is not self-evident. It comes from Christ, and we have Christ’s authority through the Church.
jj
Jason,
You asked in #316:
My experience was a bit different. Out of the blue I realized that Protestantism doesn’t work (see here for details) and immediately realized I was no longer Protestant. I had no interest in the Catholic Church at all at that time. Months later, though, it became clear that I would have to give the Church a hearing.
No specific Scripture passage made me decide to become Catholic. It was much more the vast preponderance of the evidence. The Church’s explanations of what were difficult passages for me as a Protestant were eminently satisfying. The fact that the Church has a coherent, consistent foundation on which to object to human cloning, ESCR, and so forth was important for me: I always intuited as a Protestant that there were problems with cloning but I never heard of any coherent reason why it is wrong. See the Catechism on this.
Another incredibly important factor, quite honestly, was the shabbiness of the Protestant arguments against the Church. I found them to be essentially a pile of fables that could not bear scrutiny, and even the good arguments (which were sparse) had satisfying answers from the Catholics.
Ultimately, though, my decision to become Catholic was a determination to assent by faith to the Church. I became convinced of her claim to be the Church founded by Christ, and while I still had intellectual difficulties with some Marian doctrine and practice I realized what someone else put more succinctly than I could have at the time: if there are no doctrines that I believe just because the Church teaches them then I am still a Protestant. It was time for an act of faith once I was convinced that the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church.
I still do not have all the answers and I never will. But I do not have to. :-)
Hope this helps,
Fred
Fred,
Do you think you now have certainty about what Scripture means? After all, the RCC has never officially produced an interpretation of the Scriptures.
How can the RCC be the church that Christ founded when the RCC teaches doctrines that Jesus and His apostles never taught?
@ David,
I disagree, Law and Gospel preaching never fully disappeared. It became scarce by the middle ages, but you can find it in the Church Fathers and very explicitly in the Bible. There were other medival reformers before Luther who, though maybe not so well formulated or careful and error free (by this I refer to our Confession and not the totallity of the writings of Luther) as Luther raised similar objections based on the clear teachings of Scripture, namely Wycliffe and Hus. This charge of Marcionism is absurd and unsubstantiated.
As I said before, Luther brought forth nothing new, only something old that is taught in Scripture from beginning to end.
BTW, all who are answering my question about what Scriptures you believe led you to Roman Catholocism…Thanks for your answers.
Pat, I would say their Catechism would be their official interpretation. Roman Catholics correct me if I am wrong. What I want to know is who decides on the interpretation of the interpretation? And why are Lutheran “anathema” after Trent but “separated brethren” after Vatican II? I find the fact that anyone can argue that Roman Catholicism has a unity of faith with so many docrtinal changes and contradictions, and the claim of the Papacy in the middle ages to have the authority to change the words of scripture itself mind boggling. I have even heard Roman Catholics say things like “We don’t teach that anymore.” Well, that is a pretty big problem theologically speaking if you are to claim Apostolic succession and unity etc.
“@ John on #836 “I had to start by realising that precisely the idea of starting from Scripture to find the Church was not possible. The authority of Scripture is not self-evident. It comes from Christ, and we have Christ’s authority through the Church.” – To say that the authority of Scripture is not self-evident is absurd as Christ and His Apostles taught that they were authoritative and this is actually recorded in the Scriptures and further supported by the Church Fathers by their use of the Scriptures.
Pat,
You asked me (in #838):
With respect, I think that what you are asking is a question that only a Protestant would ask, and that’s because of his views about sola/solo scriptura. In other words, for the Catholic your question isn’t framed in a way that is particularly relevant to us. I do not say this to be unkind, but merely to say that, as Agent Brown said to Agent Smith in The Matrix, “Perhaps we’re asking the wrong questions.” :-)
One minor quibble: the Catholic Church has never pronounced an official interpretation of the entirety of Scripture but there are portions of it about which it has spoken authoritatively and finally. But it is a false assumption to propose (as many Protestants do, not just you) that the Church has some duty to pronounce authoritatively and finally what the meaning of all of Scripture is. Unless I am very mistaken I do not think you would be able to substantiate such a claim on your own terms for your own denomination or congregation, so I do not know why you think it should be a duty of the Catholic Church.
More relevantly, perhaps: the Church’s mission is to save souls. It does this by proclaiming the truth. This does not often require an “official interpretation” of the Bible, since the Church knows the truths that the Bible teaches and proclaims them faithfully. Secondly, divine revelation is not limited to the Bible; it is preserved in Sacred Tradition as well.
More practically, perhaps: I do not think that I necessarily have greater certainty about most of what the Bible teaches. I think I do have greater certainty about at least parts of it, because I have read the Catechism and have learned how the Church interprets many passages of Scripture, and I have learned that my duty in reading the Bible is to interpret it in accord with the living tradition of the Church (as the Catechism says). Lastly, if I have uncertainty about some truth, I can ask my priest, my bishop, my archbishop, etc. for help that is actually authoritative.
You also asked:
Once again, you are assuming the Protestant view when you say that. We of course deny such a charge, and insist that the Church has never added to the deposit of divine revelation.
I don’t know this for a fact, but I suspect you’d better understand why we do not accept the way that you frame these questions if you read The Accidental Catholic. :-)
I hope this helps clarify things.
Peace,
Fred
@Drew 835 – It would be interesting, with most people I have heard that are ex-Lutherans turned Roman Catholic typically never understood Lutheranism. I would say with the case of the guy you cite his conversion was probably based on philosophy rather than Scripture. The Apostles warned against being carried away by human philosopy.
“Lastly, if I have uncertainty about some truth, I can ask my priest, my bishop, my archbishop, etc. for help that is actually authoritative.” – What if two priests contradict each other? I met a guy whose priest said drunkeness was not a sin and another whose priest said it was.
Fred,
Thanks for clarifying some things. It is a valid question to ask if your church has officially interpreted Scripture given that the Scriptures are the foundations of the faith. RC’s continually point out that there are over 30,000 different denominations based on thousands of different interpretations of Scripture. What you have pointed out is that the RC is not in any better position when it comes to understanding and interpreting Scripture since your church has never done so. It means that no RC can say their interpretation of Scripture is the correct one.
Since you claim that Sacred Tradition is also divine revelation can you give me a couple of examples of it?
“Secondly, divine revelation is not limited to the Bible; it is preserved in Sacred Tradition as well” – Ah, so it’s a secret?
@Herbert #828 What do you do with the many passages that clearly teach the Vicarious Atonement (what you seem to call PSA)? It is extremely explicit in Scripture that Jesus did in fact die in our place for all of our sins. To deny the Vicarious Atonement is to deny Christ.
Jennifer (re:#834),
Thanks for the question! Fairly simply put (I hope!), what Protestants mean by “imputation” is that, according to their understanding of Biblical teaching, at the moment that a person trusts in Christ for salvation, that person has the *perfect, spotless righteousness of Christ Himself* imputed to him/her by God. In other words, because of that person’s faith in Christ, God chooses to view that person (in terms of eternal salvation) *as if* he/she were perfectly righteous, as Christ is perfectly righteous– even though, with the sinful person, this is obviously not the case (i.e. he/she is not *actually* perfectly righteous). That is what is mean by imputation or imputed righteousness.
By contrast, the Catholic view is *infusion*. At the moment of baptism, the infant (or the adult who has come to faith by God’s grace and approached the Church for baptism) is regenerated, in that he/she is actually infused with a *real righteousness* from God, and is given grace and power from God to actually live as believers are commanded by God to live in Scripture.
To be sure, in the Catholic view, believers do not now have the perfect, spotless righteousness of Christ, either in actual reality, or as “imputed” (counted) to them by God (given that original sin is still present in us, and we do still sin), but through baptism and faith, we have a real and increasing righteousness, by the grace of God and by our active use of that grace (although even our use of His grace is still due to His grace at work in us!). God infuses real righteousness into us through baptism and faith, rather than “counting” us as having the perfect righteousness of Christ due to our faith in Him. That is the difference between imputation and infusion.
I used to hold to the view of imputation as a Protestant, but now, as a Catholic “revert,” I thoroughly believe infusion to be the true teaching taught by Christ and the apostles in Scripture, and handed down through history, with apostolic authority, from the apostles to their successors– all the way up to the present day in the Catholic Church.
Jennifer,
Imputation is a theory about how Christ’s atonement benefits us, how it is that God can accept us as “righteous.” In Protestant dogma, we remain objectively sinful – sinful enough to merit damnation – even after being regenerated by the grace of Christ. However, God overlooks our objectively sinful state and instead regards the righteousness of Christ as if it were ours. God reckons Christ’s righteousness as if it were ours. He “imputes” Christ’s righteousness to the believer. In turn, our sins are “imputed” to Christ and he is punished in our stead.
This is very different from the Catholic (and, I would argue) the Pauline data, in which the grace of Christ inwardly transforms us so that we become objectively righteous and acceptable to God. It is Christ’s grace that does it, of course, but it is the objective, moral change that makes us acceptable. Furthermore, this grace is a share in God’s very life – a sharing in the divine nature, as St. Peter says.
-David
David,
If ” the grace of Christ inwardly transforms us so that we become objectively righteous and acceptable to God” then why would you need to go to confession? A person who is objectively righteous does not sin.
Are you saying that you are perfectly-objectively righteous in your life before God?
David # 850 “Sinful enough” How sinful do you think you have to be to merit damnation? Gee-wiz. You might want to point out that you guys mean something totally different when you use the word “grace”. I do not know where you are coming from when it comes to Paul since he (and the OT Prophets and other Apostles)clearly teaches Christ’s righteousness is imputed as I have already earlier demonstrated from the scriptures, and confesses himself to be sinful( Philipians 3:12, Romans 7). The Apostle John goes so far as to say in 1 John 1:8 that if we say we have no sin the Truth is not in us. Also, your representation of the protestant view does not represent the Lutheran view. We would say our Soul is dead and reasurected in Baptism (or the hearing of the Word in the case of adults) and fully sanctified but not our flesh because we still have the old Adam along with the New Adam. When we are raised from the dead on the last day then we will be fully sanctified body and soul (1 Cor 15:52). You also leave out that in the Lutheran view that the sins of the whole world are objectively forgiven.
Hi Jason,
Re: sinful enough: without sanctifying grace in the soul, which is destroyed by mortal but not venial sin.
Re: grace: 2 Peter 1:4.
Re: “Where I’m coming from.” Jason, simply throwing Bible verses my way doesn’t “demonstrate” anything. What is at issue between Catholics and Protestants is the meaning and significance of those verses. I’ve read the Bible, too. But I don’t see there what you see there.
-David
Pat,
I would go to confession if I stopped being objectively righteous by sinning.
Correct.
Sometimes.
-David
@ David Anders, # 855 You cannot erase other passages of scripture by quoting a verse about the Mystical Union out of context. 2 Peter 1:1 by itself totally destroys your argument.
Jason,
How does 2 Peter 1:1 destroy the Catholic doctrine of infused righteousness?
Regarding the rest of you comment, I’ve deleted the portions that do not conform to our posting guidelines.
-David
@Christopher Lake #851 That is not technically correct. Righteousness is imputed by faith but isn’t because of faith it is because of Christ perfect life, death, and reasurection for us. Everything goes back to Christ and His Cross including faith. What you describe is close but that slight error can slide off into fideism. As for your view, I don’t see what good it is. If Christ’s life, death, and reasurection didn’t save you what if you are spending your whole life trying to save yourself and you get to the end and find out it you just didn’t quite pull it off? And are your sins really forgiven if you have to spend millions of years being punished in purgatory? To me, Roman Catholicism just sounds like flat out unbelief with a Christian facade.
@ # 852. In the Lutheran view we are objectively justified because of what Christ has done, what we need is to be subjectively justified by faith in Jesus Christ and what He has done.
Hello Pat,
You said, in #843:
That is not what St. Paul says. He says that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the faith. I have no problem with your asking the question you did, though, because it is perfectly reasonable from within your own interpretive paradigm…which the Catholic Church does not share.
Well, yes and no. If you’ll recall, I said that the Church has authoritatively interpreted portions of the Bible. If a Catholic holds to the same interpretation of these passages as the Church, he can be certain that he is correct. On other passages, it is true that I (for example) could be mistaken, but as I said that is not relevant in the same way for Catholics as it is for Protestants because we deny the validity of any Protestant form of holding to Scripture alone.
Additionally, the Catholic has courts of appeal by which to learn a given passage’s authoritative interpretation if or when that is necessary. It is rarely necessary, because the Church has consistently and faithfully taught the truth of the Gospel throughout history.
Furthermore, the fact that a particular form of authority is rarely exercised does not imply that it does not exist at all. So when you suggest (as it seems you do) that by not having authoritatively interpreted the Bible in toto the Church demonstrates that it lacks the authority entirely, the conclusion does not follow.
Lastly, you ask:
Peace,
Fred
#858 David, 2 Peter 1:1 clearly teaches that the Righteousness of God is imputed by faith to Christians. “Simeon[a] Peter, a servant[b] and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ:”
He says it is “to those who have obtained a faith of equal standing to” the Apostles, that is to say, the same faith “by the righteousness of God.” This is clearly an alien righteousness imputed to the believer by faith. He goes on to discuss the Mystical Union and Sanctification that follow. The very first thing he brings up in the epistle is in fact Justification by faith.
Futhermore he goes on to speak of Scripture as authoritative and that it is of no private interpretation. However, the Roman Catholic Church seems to teach that it has a right of private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:16-21 “16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Fred #861. You misquote St. Paul. He says the Church is the pillar and various translations translate it various ways but lets use your word “Foundation” “of the truth” not “the faith.” Then he goes on and explains what that truth is, which is the Gospel, which is what the Church is to preach. The Gospel itself creates the Church, or rather the Holy Spirit by it. St. Paul goes on to explain that some will come into the Church teaching docrtines of demons, among them forbidding marriage, a practice the Papacy took up in the middle ages. It is no scandal that some early popes were married with children as some outside the church think (calling it hypocrisy) but it is a scandal that later popes forbid priests to marry.
I would add to what Fred listed in 854:
-The Nicene Creed
-The Confession of Chalcedon
-The NT canon (by which I mean the list of which books are included in the NT, and by extension, which books are not)
@ #865 The Nicene Creed and Chalcedon only repeat what the Scriptures already say. As for the canon it is recognized by the Church, not created. I would point out that as far as I know there were various canons recognized at various local councils but the first “Ecumenical Council”, so called, that put forth any effore to set an official canon was Trent or no? As far as I know the 66 books of the Protestant Canon are universally recognized but as to the Apocrypha these are considered Deutero-Canonical by the RCC and EOC, and the Canon differs slightly between those two bodies. If I am wrong can anyone quote anything other than a local coucil recognizing a canon of scripture?
Jason,
In #863 you claimed:
I did not use quotation marks, so to say I “misquoted” seems a bit strong. :-) I wrote from memory and didn’t bother to even provide the citation because I assumed my audience would know what I was talking about.
As to whether I have misrepresented what Paul said in 1 Tim. 3:15, I will let the reader be the judge. What I said is actually in #860, not 861:
Now, to verify whether I in fact misrepresented St. Paul, I examined sixteen different translations, some of which were Protestant and others which were Catholic.
As I said, the reader may judge whether I have misrepresented St. Paul.
If you claim that I got it wrong because of the underlying Greek, all I can say is that I have quite a few Catholic and Protestant translators who apparently agree with me.
One other thing occurs to me, Jason. In a couple posts you have observed that we have paid little or no attention to the Lutheran view. You are exactly right. This website is not intended to pay attention to Lutheran theology; its specific purpose is to facilitate dialogue with folks in the Reformed theological tradition (i.e., Presbyterians, continental Reformed). This is pointed out here. We mean no offense to our Lutheran brethren, of course. We have a specific focus which is publicly presented. Unlike St. Paul we are not able to be all things to all people, so we have a target audience. We apologize if this means we do not address the concerns of your tradition, but we find that the dialogue proceeds better if we retain our chosen focus and try to stay on topic.
Peace,
Fred
SB,
Your additions in #864 to my list are excellent. Thanks!
Peace,
Fred
Fred #866, Upon further reflection, to be fair I admit that it doesn’t matter if you use the word Faith or Truth because either way the context dictates that by Faith or Truth he is talking about the Gospel, which disagreement as to what that means is at the heart of our other disagreements.
I suppose what would help is to not use the word “protestant” and rather divide it between Lutheran and Reformed. We get lumped in under the protestant label but we are NOT the same as the Reformed.
As far as “Lutheran brethren”, how can we be brethren if we are are anathema (papacy’s words, not mine)?
Jason,
As to 2 Peter 1:1, he says we have obtained faith by the righteousness of God. Not that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us through faith.
-david
Jason,
There were and are many people who disagree that Scripture teaches what Nicene and Chalcedon taught. Those definitions were in controversy (and still are in some circles), with all sides using Scripture to support what they believed to be true. The same is true now between Lutherans and the Catholic Church: you claim that some-or-other text of Scripture “clearly” teaches X doctrine, and yet many people of sound mind and good faith, people who love and seek to follow Christ Jesus, disagree with you. Neither Luther nor his descendents (nor Calvin nor his) claimed the infallible ability to inerrantly interpret Scripture, so where you get your confidence in proclaiming X-or-Y doctrine settled by your personal understanding of a passage I don’t understand. I read the same Bible, but in reading it I see the amazing gift of the Catholic Church being provided by God; you, I expect, would adamantly disagree and say I am interpreting key passages incorrectly, but you have no way of establishing that diagnosis authoritatively, because a claim on such authority is and must be explicitly disavowed by those who hold to “sola scriptura.” When the fruit of “sola scriptura” is visible and rancorous disunity, and the doctrine itself cannot even hold up against a rational critique on its own terms, it appears obvious from the outside to be a doctrine held in error. Granted, I came from a Reformed background, not Lutheran, but bad doctrine is bad doctrine, and “sola scriptura” is that from any angle.
However, if Christ provided us with his Church as a supernatural grace, the pillar and ground of truth, then following and being united to this Church will protect our faith from the ravages of personal interpretations of Scripture, and will keep us faithful to Christ himself. That’s where I want to be: faithful to Christ; prayerfully and intelligently reading Scripture in the context of the Church, but obedient where I don’t understand.
God be with you,
SB
Jason (#843)
Can you tell me where in Scripture Christ or His apostles tell me:
1) Which writings are Scripture
2) That they are inspired and inerrant
3) That I am expected to know without an external authority what they require of me?
When I say that the authority of Scripture is not self-evident, I mean that these three things are things I would have to know with moral certainty by reading Scripture.
jj
SB,
The Roman Catholic church has never officially interpreted the Scripture. There is no official interpretation of any verse or passage of Scripture by the Roman Catholic church. This means you must personally interpret the Scripture and you can never claim its the official interpretation of your church. No Roman Catholic can. This is no different than Protestants.
David,
You must be going to confession every day because no one cannot sin multiple times a day. Do you claim that you love the Lord your God with all mind, heart and soul perfectly? Do you claim to keep the whole law of God perfectly because not to do so is to break it all? See James 2:10
Pat,
How do you know that one cannot go without sinning multiple times a day?
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.
(1 John 3:9)
-David
Pat,
I’m glad you realize that the Magisterium does not exist in order to interpret every passage of Scripture. However, this does not mean I have no guidance in interpreting Scripture. If, for example, I interpret John 1:1 as an Arian, I obviously run afoul the Church’s dogma on the Trinity. Granted – The Church does not publish an official exegetical manual on every verse of Scripture, but it does lay down dogmas that my interpretation cannot contravene.
In any event, I’m so glad that my faith doesn’t rest on the interpretation of Scripture. It rests on the Public teaching of the Church – which is drawn from both Scripture and tradition, and guided by the Spirit-led magisterium.
But i’m also glad the church does not publish a dogmatic interpretation of job 19:17
-David
Hello Jason,
You wrote in #865:
That is easy for us to say now, but it certainly wasn’t the universal opinion in the 4th century. Arius and his team quoted Scripture in defense of their views, and he was successful in convincing practically the entire Eastern Church. It seems to me that to suggest his view was obviously unbiblical requires the further declaration that fully half the Church consisted of idiots and evil men who were easy for Arius to mislead. I do not find this notion to be credible. Hence I do not believe Nicaea had only to do something trivial like state what was allegedly obvious in the Bible.
The canon’s contents were themselves produced by the Church. They did not just fall out of the sky, right? :-) The Church then had to determine which of the many writings at hand were in fact inspired by God. This is non-trivial, since (as others have already said) there is no written list of Scriptures in the Bible, and the fact of apostolic authorship or association is insufficient in itself to identify the right books: Barnabas was associated closely with Paul; Paul wrote letters that no longer exist (and so we conclude they were not inspired). Establishing the canon was by no means a trivial task.
Even a regional council attains universal authority if it is approved by the Pope. Hence the authority of the Second Council of Orange, for one example.
See my post here on F.F. Bruce’s thoughts about early and medieval notions of canon. Also, see this post of mine which discusses (among other things) what Bruce says about St. Augustine’s canon: namely, that its OT was identical with the Tridentine one.
The only other thing I have read on the subject is a book by (I think) DuToit in S. Africa, which asserted the fideistic idea that the canon is self-attesting. I am not sure a) where he gets that, since there is no list in the Bible anywhere of the canon, nor b) how such a list would prove anything to an unbeliever. I could call this comment of mine scriptural, but that wouldn’t make it so. :-) In the same way, the Bible’s alleged self-attestation would not prove a single thing about whether in fact it was inspired.
Peace,
Fred
Pat, your claim has been dealt with above. In the main: the fact that the Catholic Church has never published a comprehensive volume “interpreting” every line of Scripture is utterly immaterial and completely beside the point. It’s an incomprehensible objection from a Catholic point of view, and we understand it here only because most of us are former Protestants.
That said, Scripture is central to the teachings and liturgy of the Catholic Church. The Church’s teachings can all be argued directly from Scripture, as well as from the conciliar canons and history. I can interpret Scripture in a way that is in harmony with the teachings of the Church (in which case my interpretation is at least legitimate), or in discord with those teachings (in which case my interpretation is heretical). Jesus didn’t “officially” interpret every line of the Old Testament, but we would be in error to then consider it a legitimate enterprise to interpret any passage of Old Testament on which he hadn’t proclaimed as being opposed to things he taught. The same with the Church: if our interpretation of Scripture is in rupture with the teachings of the Church, we are in error, whether or not the Church has officially pronounced some definitive interpretation of that passage.
Pat and Jason – I am not a site admin, but I would just like to say that the purpose of CtC is not to exchange claims about one another’s beliefs but to lead to understanding, to argue in the traditional sense of presenting reasoning for or against a particular position. Must of what you two are doing seems to me to amount to:
a) assertions
b) ad hominem attacks – ‘you must go to Confession multiple times a day’
c) jeering
It is up to the admins to decide whether your interactions are appropriate, but I would say that both the Catholics and most Protestants as well who comment or post here are interested in light and truth, not what amounts to shouts just to believe you and convert.
jj
David,
I know no one can go through a day without sinning multiple times a day because we are fallen. See below.
Even you would have to acknowledge that you cannot “‘…. LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND’ perfectly. Not to do this perfectly in action, attitude and heart 24/7 is sin
Even Paul never made such a claim for himself:
“14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin. 15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. 16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good. 17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me. 18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. 19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want. 20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good. 22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man, 23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.” Romans 7
No one is exempt from this.
Oh dear. I feel like an 8 year old trying to participate in the varsity debate team. O_o I have very little education in these things in comparison to all you folks.
Anyway, it seems to me that perhaps there are those in the Protestant camp that also believe in infusion rather than imputation? For some reason your explanations are bringing to mind what I read many years ago concerning John Wesley’s ideas, and maybe perhaps some of the anabaptists? They are against OSAS, are they not? (I always think of them as the “holiness bunch” because they were very works oriented for Protestants). Do they then believe the same as the Catholics in this regard? It sounds to me, from my rather simple understanding, that imputation means that God sort of pretends, for Christ’s sake and because of His work on the cross, that we are actually righteous. Doesn’t this make us rather wishy washy concerning when we sin, or even about considering whether our actions are sinful at all? I know as I’ve been reading the Church fathers, I’ve been noticing how very strict they are in regards to sin and confession. Is this why Protestants don’t do confession, because if we are OSAS, then what’s the point? (I know we are to admit our sins, but that’s not quite the same as confession, is it?)
Also, in regards to 1 Tim 3:15:
“… but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth.”
Isn’t this the verse that begs the question of authority? If Christ is the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11) and also the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20) which of course is part of any foundation and is responsible for keeping the whole foundation squared up (I built a house and know that from experience); and if the apostles (NT?) and prophets (OT?) are ALSO the foundation as mentioned in Eph 2:20, and the church is being built on top of that foundation and is also the pillar and supporter of truth (1 Tim 3:15) which then becomes the roof which shelters the Church; the most important question of all is who or what is the church, for it is the pillar of truth?
As I’ve been starting to read the Church Fathers, I noticed somewhere that one of them equates bishops with apostles as their successors in handing down truth, and also somewhere is mentioned an episcopate, although I haven’t quite fully grasped the meaning of of that term.
I guess this is where I stand at this point. Who or what is the Church? When Christ was praying that all those who were given to Him, and those who come after that through their message, should be one (in fact He said “that they may be brought to complete unity”), surely His prayer of all prayers has been honoured and has been answered. He could not pray outside of His Father’s will, right? So if we can be confident that it has indeed been answered, then how and where has it been answered?
Well, that’s how my 8 year old mind is thinking, anyway. The whole mess of denominations has always been a confusing point. Who is right and who is wrong. But maybe in the end Christ answered that question in His final prayer. Perhaps that was not a request so much as it was a statement in unison with God himself?
Dear Jennifer,
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
I don’t believe there is any definition of the Church more basic than that. The uniqueness of the Savior’s “total-self giving for our salvation” is reflected in the oneness of the Church. That unity is the very unity of the Blessed Trinity (John 17; Eph 4), mediated to us by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12; etc.), above all through the charity that He pours into our hearts (Col 3.14; Rom 5.5). This charity, the bond of unity par excellence is expressed and preserved by the visible bonds of union: (1) “the profession of one faith received from the Apostles”; (2) “the common celebration of divine worship, especially of the sacraments”; and (3) “apostolic succession through the sacrament of Holy Orders, maintaining the fraternal concord of God’s family” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 815). (That last one is the point of the “episcopate” you referred to in your comment.)
The above is an important, though far from the only, reason I entered the Catholic Church 6.5 years ago. If you would like to communicate more, please feel free to ask the admins for my email address. I don’t want to hijack this thread. Have a blessed Holy Week. I will pray for you.
Pat (879),
Catholics don’t claim never to sin. Nor do we deny the fallenness of humanity. Rather, we hold that love is the fulfillment of the law and it is precisely that (love) that God has poured into our hearts by the Holy Spirit. So, it becomes possible – through God’s grace – to love God, love neighbor, and thereby fulfill the law. That isn’t to say that we always do it. Of course not. But sometimes we do. We actually do love God and neighbor. A very few of us learn to do this to an heroic extent. These we call saints. I hope I can learn to be one of them some day.
Thanks for all your thoughts,
God bless,
David
Jennifer:
I know just how you feel. These topics are too deep, I think, for any single human being.
Yet, we must somehow come to decisions, mustn’t we? I’m a dad. I need to know how to teach my kids the Christian faith. So it’s not just a theoretical question: How do I know what that faith is, in a reliable way?
What clenched it for me, in favor of believing the claims of the Catholic church, was the way that the Catholic epistemology — that is to say, how a Catholic can know, and know that he knows, what is true — avoids all the difficulties which have emerged in every other system, Christian or non-Christian. It is as if it took a divine intelligence and foresight to establish it — and that is why I believe that it did.
Now, I can well believe that some Reformed Christians have started new trends within their communions to draw their communions back in the direction of earlier, more conservative confessions, to stabilize things. That kind of thing happens all the time: It is common in all human religious movements, and human political movements, and even human fashion trends. It is what the conservative theologians among American Evangelicals were trying to do, when in reaction to liberal theologians in their own camps they wrote “the Fundamentals” and gave us the movement and the term “fundamentalism.”
What is happening is that a group of persons (“Reformed Christians”) cannot be strictly defined as persons who hold such-and-such a set of teachings (because they don’t all do so), but they can be loosely defined because most of them hold most of such-and-such a set of teachings, creating a cloudy “center of gravity” for that group. But of course this will produce a pretty short list of agreed-upon positions on certain topics of Christian doctrine; it will not be a comprehensive list. Even if you are not asking, “What is true?” but only “What do Reformed Christians believe?” this list will only hit a few topics. If you want to refine the “center of gravity” to something more comprehensive you’ll need to cobble together some system for doing so; e.g., canvas all the persons who hold 100% of the doctrines on the short list, asking their opinions about doctrines on your longer list, then reduce your group to a still-smaller group in perfect agreement on THAT list (assuming that more than one is ever in perfect agreement). You may do this again and again and whittle your way down to the ONE GUY whose opinions are the true “center of gravity” for Reformed Christianity on every topic of doctrine.
There are thus many human groups for which, if you ask the question, “What does this group think is right or true?” the only answer is to look at which people are in that group currently, figure out the center-of-gravity of their opinions, refine this a few times, and note where they disagree. And of course the center-of-gravity will drift over time. Reformed Christians’ center-of-gravity on, say, contraception, is hardly what it was in 1650, 1750, or even 1850. How can a person raise his children in such a church and feel confident that, if his grandchildren and great-grandchildren attend the same church, some doctrine held to be critical and unalterable today will not be held to be hopelessly-out-of-date and contemptible in another hundred years?
Now if this is the kind of thing Jesus had in mind, then I can only conclude either that He is not God or else God’s sense of humor is more perverse than it ought to be. But Jesus is God…and, the platypus notwithstanding, I do not think God’s idea of a good joke is to throw us an insoluble conundrum, wherein a helpless wrong guess can accidentally lead to moral corruption in myself or in others whom I unknowingly misinform, and leave us to fend for ourselves as best we can. Pastors and elders (in the Presbyterian sense) are in a particularly tight spot: They are held to a “higher standard” and the consequences to the souls of anyone they teach wrongly are on their heads. I do not think a good Father would manage things in such a way.
Ah, but look at how things change if you have a Church wherein…
1. The persons with authority to make doctrinal rulings on matters of faith and morals can objectively and authoritatively be identified (where “authoritative” means they got the authority to make those decisions either from Christ, or from someone to whom Christ delegated the authority to make such decisions);
2. In the event of a dispute between the authorities, there is one authority-figure with a sort of tie-breaking vote, beyond whom the matter cannot be appealed further;
3. Things declared “unreformable” are, in fact, unreformable: They won’t change until Christ returns;
4. When you yourself don’t happen to know the answer to a topic; there are human beings you can ask about it, and if it is not an entirely new question, and you are willing to do your homework and talk to enough people to find out who the experts are, then you can find out for sure (a.) if a ruling already exists; (b.) does it allow or disallow just one particular view, or a range of them; and (c.) whether your view is within the acceptable range;
5. All of these attributes can be explained in terms of Scripture and the Early Church Fathers and first-century post-exilic Judaism, without appealing anachronistically to systems and ideas unknown to first-century Jewry;
6. None of these require me to believe in “Ecclesial Deism” or that the Early Christians somehow completely misunderstood a lot of important Christian doctrines which some 16th-century (or 19th! or 20th! or 21st!) Christians were somehow the first ones to correctly understand, on the basis of Scripture, despite being separated from the times and culture of the Scriptures’ authors by 1500 years’ more distance than the Early Christians were;
7. Free Will is preserved and even amplified.
I want my Item #7 to be correctly understood: I am not making a point about Double Predestination or anything, although I do think some Reformed Christians sound like they think God made a wind-up universe of automata. (I take them at their word when they say that they don’t derive that conclusion from their own premises; I just never seem to avoid deriving that conclusion from their premises when I attempt to retrace their steps.) But that is not what I mean by #7.
What I mean is this: If you don’t know what’s required of you, you don’t really have a choice whether to obey it or not. But if you know, not on the basis of your own best guess but from a trustworthy authority, then the option of obeying becomes truly available.
If I’m not sure whether contraception is sinful, or whether it is a diss against women not to ordain them to the clergy, or whether long-term-exclusive-faithful homosexual relationships ought to be regarded with a dignity and holiness identical to heterosexual ones…if I am not sure about such things, and if I believe that no objectively-identifiable third party has sure knowledge about the topic, then I will naturally gravitate towards a local church of likeminded folks. I may even whip up a self-righteous moral crusade in favor of my view. I may even shift the “center of gravity” of my group in my direction. I may shift it so far that, in the end, my views ARE the “center of gravity.”
But if I know that there is a person who can tell me, and I know which person it is because he’s the guy holding a particular office? And if I know that he has the right to be in that office because he got that authority from another guy with authority, who got his authority from another guy with authority, et cetera, all the way back to Jesus?
Why, then, in that case, I can go ask. And then I’ll have my answer. And after that…it’s up to me: I can either obey, even if I don’t like the answer…or, not.
Muslims don’t have that. Buddhists don’t have that. Hindus don’t have that. Jews used to have that (or something pretty close) but haven’t had it since Jesus’ day (or earlier). Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons sound like they have it, but when you look closely their version has changed its mind and swept embarrassing rulings under the carpet many times. Protestants generally don’t have it; even particular sub-groups don’t have it, unless you break Protestantism down into sub-groups no larger than 10-or-so persons at a time. Orthodox Christians have it, but in an attenuated sense: Their ability to make communion-wide rulings is currently stymied, although existing rulings can at least be held unreformable. (I am aware, though, that such Western-sounding language is ill-adapted to the Eastern outlook on such matters.)
But the Catholic church has it. In that Church, I can obey in matters old and new, and my great-grandchild will have the same option, and find the teaching still the same.
The Messianic Kingdom really is like a rebuilt “House of David,” a dynasty in which the “Son of David” is on the throne forever, and “the scepter never departs from Judah,” and when the stewards issue rulings as “the Church” what they bind or loose on earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. And the “chief steward” really IS like “a tent peg in a secure place,” holding the household together, just like Isaiah 22 foreshadows.
It amazes me with the beauty and solidity of it.
The one thing I have against it is that there are bits that I would do differently. There are many things I am tempted to whine and complain about. I find I want to play Mr. Potato Head with the Church: Replacing this bit or that bit with my own improved, preferred bits. There are many bits I find myself wanting to “tweak.”
But that also seems right to me (even if it feels uncomfortable). For I am a very imperfect man, and my priorities are so often not the same as the Lord’s. It is very unlikely that a Church designed by Jesus Christ would do things exactly as I think they should be done. The Catholic Church doesn’t! So, wincing, I find she passes that test: She is, in that way also, very like what I would expect Jesus’ weird supernatural organization to be.
Anyway, I think I’ve run out of things to say in response. I hope some of that is helpful or food-for-thought, Jennifer. May God graciously give you, me, and all of us, wisdom to see His will and mercy in all our shortcomings.
Jason (re:#858),
You wrote to me:
Of course, I understand that in the Lutheran and Reformed view of imputation, the imputed righteousness of the believer is not literally due to his/her faith itself. I know full well that the *object* of faith is of the greatest importance. It is definitive. However, *without* the faith of the believer (by and through God’s grace), in the Lutheran/Reformed view, Christ’s perfect righteousness is not imputed to said person. That is all I meant when I wrote, in #850, that:
As for your not seeing “what good” my view is, your mischaracterization of the Catholic view (as being that of Christ not saving us, but us saving ourselves) strongly implies that you have not yet begun to understand the Catholic view. Have you taken serious time to study Catholicism, at length, from its own sources, and not simply from Protestant caricatures of it?
Catholics fully believe that Christ saves us. As a Lutheran, you seem to believe that if a person does not hold to the doctrine of imputed righteousness, then that person does not, by definition, believe that Christ saves us. However, if one seriously studies the writings of the early Church Fathers and the other documents of pre-Reformation Christianity, one begins to ascertain (as I did, unhappily, at the time, as a Reformed Baptist) that for many, many centuries before Luther, professing Christians articulated and held to a view quite *other* than that of imputed righteousness.
Now, either these professing Christians were believers and were just horribly misguided on the matter of imputed righteousness for a very long time, or they were not believers at all– or they were articulating the historic Christian view, which was, and is, *not* that of imputed righteousness, but rather, infusion. Being a Catholic, obviously, I believe the third scenario to be the truth. In any event, if you want to really engage in dialogue here, then it would be helpful to understand that citing Bible verses and simply *asserting* that they “clearly teach” your view is *not* dialogue. It’s not even the making of an argument for your view. It’s just an assertion of your view– and this site is for dialogue, which involves much more than assertion.
Again, Catholics believe that Christ saves us. Our baptism, our faith, and all of our works, are by and through God’s grace, which is most clearly shown through Christ, in His coming into the world for us, living a perfect life, and dying a sacrificial death of atoning love for us on the Cross. Christ saves us. We do not save ourselves. To say that Catholics *believe* that we save ourselves is a gross mischaracterization. The Church does not teach such a thing. The Church long ago declared both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism to be heresies.
With the above being said, Scripture does warn that there is sin which leads to death. Not all sin leads to death, but some sin does. The Catholic Church has historically understood this warning to refer to *spiritual* death– and to be an indication of the difference between mortal and venial sin (a distinction that obviously does not exist in either Lutheran or Reformed Christianity). In the Catholic view, Christ saves us, but when we willingly, consciously, deliberately choose to engage in mortal sin, we *reject* His saving of us. We turn our backs on Him in an eternally deadly way. Yet even this rejection can be repented of and mended through Christ’s grace and forgiveness, which are always offered to us in the confessional. Catholics believe that in John 20:19-23, He gives His apostles (and, by implication, their successors) His own apostolic authority to hear confessions and forgive sins because of what *He* did for us in His perfect life and atoning death on the Cross.
One last note, meant with full respect for you, and just as a statement of my current physical reality: I sadly don’t have the time, or the physical energy, to engage in an extended series of comments on CTC at present. I’m happy to try to answer questions, as I am able, which is why I answered Jennifer, initially, in #850, and why I’m replying to you here. However, since last July, I have been suffering from serious chronic pain issues that have greatly diminished my participation here. I was once very active in the CTC comment boxes. However, due to my pain issues, I’m just not able to sustain that intense level of mental concentration anymore, at least not for more than short periods of time here and there. That doesn’t mean that I can’t or won’t reply to you at all– but it probably can’t go on at great length in my current physical condition. Thanks for your understanding.
Pat,
“Even you would have to acknowledge that you cannot “‘…. LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND’ perfectly. Not to do this perfectly in action, attitude and heart 24/7 is sin”
So by this interpretation, you are constantly sinning every second of your regenerate life and will continue to do so until death. So why do you not fall under John’s warning that no one who is born of God practices sin and contradict his statement that God’s commandments are not burdensome to the regenerate? Presumably your church practices discipline. So why isn’t it disciplining (either by removal or counsel that they may be deceived they are really saved) all its members who are in constant serial sin breaking this commandment instead of only those members who practice serial/habitual murder or theft or adultery and the like?
The other way to interpret that command is that it concerns one’s chief/highest end, not that it is a burden imposing a demand of constant maximal possible intensity/effort.
RCs agree with your citation of Rom 7. They also agree that Paul is talking about concupiscence. The Protestant view that Rom 7 refers to (mortal) sin constantly plaguing the regenerate every second is afaik unknown for over 1000 years. Robert Wilken states that the 2 dominant interpretations – both patristic and medieval – leading to Reformation were that it referred to either to concupiscence or to natural man outside of grace (i.e. Paul is taking on a persona). Both Aquinas and the later Augustine held to the concupiscence interpretation, as I think most RCs do.
Doesn’t a lot of this discussion hinge on what justification and sanctification are? For instance, is justification a one time act where God declares the sinner righteous in His sight? If so how does a sinner get God to declare him or her righteous? Many believe this happens at the end of your life and the Lord looks back on said life and scrutinizes and then declares a person righteous. Others believe it is entirely about saving faith. When a sinner recognizes they need the blood of Christ to wash their sins away and that Jesus is the only Savior then this person’s faith is counted as righteousness. Therefore God declares the person innocent,free from sin because of their faith and nothing else. I take this view because I believe this is exactly what Paul is talking about in Romans 3-4.
Sanctification is not a one time act. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:3 For this is the will of God, your sanctification; that is, that you abstain from sexual immorality;4 that each of you know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor, Obviously Paul is speaking about one sin the church has a problem with. And logic would tell us that even in this type of sin one is never truly victorious to the point where they claim it can never touch them again. Therefore sanctification is a process and not a one time act. As we continue to trust in the grace of God,the unmerited favor of Him, we get a little better everyday. I would conclude in saying this. Justification is all of God. He decided to declare everyone righteous who would trust in His Son for salvation. So it has nothing to do with human beings. As the Scripture says 2 Corinthians 5:21 He made Him who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.
Sanctification is different in that there is a human element. We could never grow to be holy,sanctified before the Lord without His presence and enabling. But, we can’t say it’s all of Him because we do decide daily to take up our Cross and follow Him. Galatians 5:24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.25 If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit. Paul is saying here that we should live as we truly are. Because sin has been dealt with on the Cross,in other words has been paid for, then we should live accordingly. There is no guarantee that we will,but we can find sanctifying power through our reckoning ourselves dead to sin and alive to God Romans 6:11 Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Van,
Of course.
What do you make of Romans 2:13: for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.
-David
Cletus,
Someone calculated that if you sin 10 times a day everyday for 50 years you will have committed 182,000 sins. That is quite a rap sheet don’t you think?
It is one thing to struggle against sin and another to justify it. Our lives are to oriented towards holiness and a rejection of sin. We are to mourn over sin (Matt 5:4), and not to put the members of our bodies in the service of of sin, (Romans 6:11-14). One of the problems that we have is laid out in Romans 7:14-25 .
Some sins are more serious than others. Adultery does require some kind of church discipline while stealing a pencil does not.
@#885 Cletus, From a Lutheran point of view, yes, we are constantly sinning until our last breath because concupiscence is sin. If you read St. John in context you will find that what he teaches is exactly the same as what Lutheranism teaches, that we are simultaneously sinner and saint because he says “if we say we have no Sin the Truth is not in us.”
@888 Pat, steeling a Pencil might require Church discipline in a case where the thief insisted that it was okay to steal the pencil. That is to say, if they were unrepentant of their thievery.
I will take a stab @ answering the Romans quesiton @ #877 the Law no longer condemns those who have faith in Jesus. Thus they are free by faith in Jesus to use it as a guide for doing good works. Furthermore, in Scripture, to “keep God’s Law” or “Keep God’s Word” does not equal perfect obedience, it means to guard it and to keep it on your heart, in your mind, and on your lips. That is not to say God grades on a curve, He doesn’t, but because Christ’s perfect righteousness is counted to those with faith in Jesus they are seen as though they kept it. This is the only way one can be obedient to God’s Law. Anything short of righteousness by faith in Jesus, (that is jusfication by faith) is heeping sin upon sin. Being justified by faith is the thing that actually makes a good work possible. Anything short of justification by faith alone will prevent one from doing a good work because it’s motive is no longer pure and no longer love, but the law and its threats of condemnation.
Pat,
“That is quite a rap sheet don’t you think?”
Yes, according to your interpretation of the 2 great commandments, your rap sheet is pretty much infinitely long since you are (mortally) sinning every second of your life in countless ways.
“It is one thing to struggle against sin and another to justify it. Our lives are to oriented towards holiness and a rejection of sin. We are to mourn over sin (Matt 5:4), and not to put the members of our bodies in the service of of sin, (Romans 6:11-14).”
So you’re struggling with sin, but still committing the same habitual sin (breaking the 2GC) every second of your life. How does that show a life oriented towards holiness and rejection of sin? Is the biblical definition of repentance just sorrow/remorse without firm purpose of amendment?
“Some sins are more serious than others. Adultery does require some kind of church discipline while stealing a pencil does not.”
Not according to the interpretation that all sins are equally damning (i.e. mortal). Remember, if you fail in one point, you’re guilty of all. According to your interpretation, the serial pencil stealer is just as guilty before God as the serial murderer (although their degree of condemnation/punishment would vary). By your own principles, your church and you are not justified in giving the admitted serial 2GC breakers a shrug and pass while serial wifebeaters or adulterers get disciplined.
Jason,
” From a Lutheran point of view, yes, we are constantly sinning until our last breath because concupiscence is sin. If you read St. John in context you will find that what he teaches is exactly the same as what Lutheranism teaches, that we are simultaneously sinner and saint because he says “if we say we have no Sin the Truth is not in us.”
Yes John teaches that. He also teaches “No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God.” and “We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the One who was born of God keeps them safe, and the evil one cannot harm them.” and that his commandments are not burdensome (if we’re violating his commandments every second, that seems burdensome).
So we have to reconcile what you cite and what I cite. RCism does it via the distinctions between concupiscence, venial sin, mortal sin. Concupiscence can be characterized as sin in terms of it originating from sin and that it so often results in sin, but it is not sin proper. That’s why Augustine and 1000 years of christianity did not hold it as sin proper.
“steeling a Pencil might require Church discipline in a case where the thief insisted that it was okay to steal the pencil. That is to say, if they were unrepentant of their thievery.”
What if the thief said it wasn’t okay to steal the pencil, but kept stealing pencils every second of his life?
Is he fighting against and resisting his inclination to steal? Or is he making a practice of stealing willfully? A truely repentant person has a changed mind, against and away from thier sin (both the nature and the deed), for and toward God. It appears to me that the Roman Catholic system tries to justify and excuse sin by saying some sins are worse than others or denying it outright. This raises the question, which Roman Catholic Priest was right? The one who agreed with God’s Word and told my one friend that drunkeness is sin or the other one who told my other friend that drunkeness is not a sin but all the bad things you do when drunk are sins. This is one of the many reasons I have a very hard time taking Roman Catholicism seriously.
Really, the Biblical solution to the sin problem is the forgiveness of sins. I don’t see the forgiveness of sins from what I hear from Roman Catholics. Not often anyway. When you take Roman Catholicism out to its logical conclusion you pretty much have a Jesus who only died for original sin rather than all sin (the Bible says He died for all Sin), and then after that you have to work them off or spend perhaps millions of years paying for them in purgatory. It also seems that Roman Catholicism denies that our Sin (sinful nature, or concupiscence) is sin. I fail to see how that is in anyway shape or form repentance and the forgiveness of sins. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying that Roman Catholics are necessarily damned or all Lutherans and or Calvinists are saved, but the ones who are genuine Christians but not Lutheran, I don’t think they really believe what they say they do or what they are supposed to as prescribed by their denomination or hierachy. Futhermore, I don’t think I could ever join a church where someone can be heard saying “We don’t teach that anymore.” You can’t say that I am Anathema after Trent and then tell me after Vatican II that I am more like a “separated brother”. Doesn’t that bother you guys in the least? And no one seems to have answeres for these questions. At least in Lutheranism I never, ever, again have to think to myself when I read Scripture “Oh no, it can’t mean that” and then proceed to satisfy my reason with intellectual acrobatics.
Cletus,
Do you believe that man is basically good and doesn’t sin that much? Do you agree with James 2:10 that to break one part of the law is to be guilty of breaking all of it?
A person will struggle against sin throughout his life. He must do what he can to stop or diminish it. That is a good thing, However, we must not think that in this life we will be free totally from sin. To practice sin is to justify it and to embrace it. It is an unbroken pattern in their lives. Struggling against sin is not to practice it.
All sins are mortal in that they break of law of God and are worthy of damnation. Only the death of Christ and His shed blood can atone to sin. Nothing else can. No purgatory, not penance.
Some sins are more serious than others on a human level. Adultery is far more serious than stealing a pencil and would church discipline. (never said anything about a “serial pencil stealer”). To steal once is sin and is worthy of condemnation.
No church that I know of would treat adultery the same way a person who steals a pencil.
Jennifer – I, too, felt at a certain point overwhelmed by all the ‘stuff.’ At one point I became semi-insane – feared that God was deliberately trying to trick me into making the wrong decision. It was at that point that I myself chose not to believe in a God like that. I refused to believe that God would say, “Go ahead, think these things all the way through – and then when you have chosen, you will have chosen wrong and go straight to hell – and I will laugh!!!.
It was immediately after that decision that I remembered that verse in Hebrews that I quoted to you – he who would come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6).
One day – on a ‘plane from Wellington to Auckland (I live in New Zealand), I finished reading Knox’s book that I recommended to you, and I prayed, quite literally, these words: “Lord, I know that I’ll never dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – but I know enough now to know that if You told me I was to die tonight, I would want to find a priest. If You don’t stop me, I’m going to become a Catholic.”
A bit of a rash prayer, some would, no doubt, say. I agree with ‘VanPastorMan’ (here). In this life, we have to choose.
If it will be any use to you, you can contact me off-list at j dot jensen at auckland dot ac dot nz. I have written a little bit about how I became a Catholic. Could help.
jj
Pat,
“Do you agree with James 2:10 that to break one part of the law is to be guilty of breaking all of it?”
I’m asking if you agree with it based on how you interpret it. You’re treating the serial pencil stealer and the serial 2GC breaker as “not so bad” as the serial adulterer or serial wifebeater. But your intepretation of James doesn’t allow you to do that.
“A person will struggle against sin throughout his life. He must do what he can to stop or diminish it. That is a good thing, However, we must not think that in this life we will be free totally from sin. To practice sin is to justify it and to embrace it. It is an unbroken pattern in their lives. Struggling against sin is not to practice it.”
If you’re breaking the 2GC every second of your life from now until death, and your best works are defiled with damnable sin, how is that not an unbroken pattern? How are you stopping or diminishing it or not practicing it?
“All sins are mortal in that they break of law of God and are worthy of damnation.”
Yep so be consistent and treat serial 2GC breakers the same as you would serial adulterers or serial murderers.
“Adultery is far more serious than stealing a pencil and would church discipline. (never said anything about a “serial pencil stealer”). To steal once is sin and is worthy of condemnation.”
The reason I bring up serial sin is because your side says people are breaking the 2GC every second of their life. Even your best works are defiled with sin. You are never not sinning in some way. Even concupiscence is sin as Jason said which is a persistent state. This is serial, habitual, lifestyle sin. But you say repentant people won’t have serial, habitual, lifestyle sin. So you’re not repentant by your own criteria, and you contradict John who says regenerate cannot go on sinning and the commandments are not burdensome.
“No church that I know of would treat adultery the same way a person who steals a pencil.”
I don’t see why you shouldn’t. You just said above all sin is damnable. If you stumble in one point, you’re guilty of it all. I will say if you were consistent in your theology, all churches would be empty because everyone would be kicked out for being habitual serial 2-GC breakers every second of their lives. That might be an indication something could be amiss in your interpretations.
Jason,
“Is he fighting against and resisting his inclination to steal? Or is he making a practice of stealing willfully? A truely repentant person has a changed mind, against and away from thier sin (both the
nature and the deed), for and toward God.”
If you’re sinning constantly every second of your life, I’m not sure how that is turning away from your sin. And you believe the inclination to steal is itself (mortally) sinful. So he’s basically never going to win as the inclination to sin is a perpetual state of the regenerate. If a serial wifebeater in your church said he was fighting against his inclination to beat his wife, but kept beating her every second, would that be acceptable to you? Why not, if you accept people who admit they are breaking the 2GC every second of their life even though they claim to fight against it? Remember, if you stumble in one point, you’re guilty of it all.
“It appears to me that the Roman Catholic system tries to justify and excuse sin by saying some sins are worse than others or denying it outright.”
It doesn’t excuse sin. It distinguishes – in the regenerate/justified – between acts that are contrary to our chief/highest end (i.e. contrary to God and charity hence destroying charity), versus those that are disordered in respect to that end (i.e. offend but do not destroy charity). As Aquinas notes, using the analogy of health:
“It follows, therefore, that if charity decrease, the cause of this decrease must be sin either effectively or by way of merit. But mortal sin does not diminish charity, in either of these ways, but destroys it entirely, both effectively, because every mortal sin is contrary to charity, as we shall state further on, and by way of merit, since when, by sinning mortally, a man acts against charity, he deserves that God should withdraw charity from him.
In like manner, neither can venial sin diminish charity either effectively or by way of merit. Not effectively, because it does not touch charity, since charity is about the last end, whereas venial sin is a disorder about things directed to the end: and a man’s love for the end is none the less through his committing an inordinate act as regards the things directed to the end. Thus sick people sometimes, though they love health much, are irregular in keeping to their diet: and thus again, in speculative sciences, the false opinions that are derived from the principles, do not diminish the certitude of the principles. So too, venial sin does not merit diminution of charity; for when a man offends in a small matter he does not deserve to be mulcted in a great matter. For God does not turn away from man, more than man turns away from Him: wherefore he that is out of order in respect of things directed to the end, does not deserve to be mulcted in charity whereby he is ordered to the last end. ”
And then it further distinguishes between sinful acts, and the inclination to sin – the “tinder of sin” which is concupiscence. And which James 1:14-15 mentions. That is not a weak or minimizing view – just because someone is not at fault for cancer does not diminish the gravity of cancer or its symptoms – hence the constant vigilance and prayer required to fight concupiscence and to forgive our daily venial faults.
John Thayer Jensen, I just googled you and found your blog! Thanks! And thanks to everyone who has responded to me. There is just so much to read on this site, and on many others as well. I am looking forward to having my seeking heart answered. :)
Jason,
I replied to your response to me in my comment #884. I don’t know if you missed my reply, but I wanted to make sure that you know it’s there.
I wish you a blessed Good Friday and Easter, brother. We are, indeed, brothers in Christ, though at present, your caricature-filled understanding of Catholicism unfortunately doesn’t allow you to see how this could be the case. Speaking from my own experience, as one who used to believe that Catholicism teaches a false gospel, patient study of Catholicism, from the Church’s own documents, can help you to see beyond those caricatures, if you are willing to take the time for that study.
Jason re:889,
You wrote:
I know this comment wasn’t directed toward me. But allow me to challenge it by saying that as i understand it, “Lutheranism” doesn’t teach anything. Various people who call themselves Lutherans believe things. I was speaking to a lifelong committed Lutheran colleague the other day and this person could not even identify Luther’s doctrine of Salvation by Faith Alone. Another Lutheran with whom I chatted last Summer was discussing his lifelong Lutheran identity only to, about 20 minutes into our conversation say “Oh! There’s no such thing as Hell! I will tell you what Hell is: It’s this hot weather.” Lutherans believe anything under the Sun in my experience. And when they’re wrong, who’s to say so? Catholics on the other hand are either faithful to Church teaching or not. When I say “She’s a faithful Catholic,” the statement means something. On the other hand, were I to say “She’s a faithful Lutheran,” I am quite sure the statement would not even make sense. Exactly what or to whom is she faithful? Some local or regional group? A world federation? Some local ELCA congregation? Catholics have 1 Catechism and 1 Magisterium and common Sacraments. Such structural unity is found nowhere else on the globe. As former Lutheran priest Joseph Jacobson said “But what Christ envisioned for his Church in terms of a magisterium no one else has except the Catholic Church, and that was my aha! moment.” I am happy that you’re visiting this site. Keep reading!
“Lord, I know that I’ll never dot every ‘i’ and cross every ‘t’ – but I know enough now to know that if You told me I was to die tonight, I would want to find a priest. If You don’t stop me, I’m going to become a Catholic.” – Isn’t a prayer like that in a sense tempting God? Like “God, if you are real then make lightning strike that tree.”??? – So just because God didn’t stop you from becoming a Roman Catholic does not mean God had anything to do with you becoming a Roman Catholic. I know God had something to do with me becoming a Lutheran because it was through God’s word that I became a Lutheran. I didn’t need to pray a prayer, I just needed to know “is” means “is”.
Hi Jason,
For the sake of facilitating conversation, please address your comments to the specific person(s) for whom they are intended. Your #901 seems a bit out of left field since I don’t know who you mean to address. :-)
Thanks kindly,
Fred
Jason was addressing John Thayer Jensen’s comments in #896
Jason, and in regards to those same comments of John’s and to your own reaction to them, I would say this; it has been my experience that God in His gracious mercy has a tendency to look upon our momentary weaknesses with love, and He is quite willing to meet us where we are at in that moment. I most certainly know that from my own experience, and I bet if you look back on your own life, you will also see that it was so in yours. :)
Jason (#901)
Indeed, if I had been in any intellectual uncertainty, it would have been – and would have been an improper prayer to make.
That’s why I said, in my prayer, “I know enough…”
At some point, you see, you have to know that you have come to the point of what is called moral certainty. Moral certainty means certainty such that you have concluded that you have a duty to act.
The man threatening the old woman on the street might, after all, not carry out his threat. I, on the other hand, might not be able to do anything about it even if I accost him. At some point I must conclude that I know enough to be convinced that it is my duty to try to stop him. I could, after all, be wrong. He could be an actor playing a part. Maybe there is a candid camera watching to see what I would do. But I have looked at the situation – in this case I might have only seconds to decide – and concluded that I have a moral obligation to act.
In regards the Catholic Church, I was not brought up a Christian. I was converted at the end of 1969, at the age of 27, in an evangelical context. I began to study Christianity, having had no upbringing. Within three years, having gone through being a Baptist and Lutheran, I concluded that the Reformed faith was more faithful to traditional beliefs (not, certainly, to practices!), and became Reformed.
But I did not stop studying, thinking, and praying. By 1992 I was deeply convinced that I could not ‘unchurch’ the mediaeval Catholic Church – which my Reformed beliefs led me to think was logical. I was convinced, by then, that many of the practices of the Catholic Church were right, that the Reformation had thrown out the baby with the bathwater. I was heavily influenced in this by the (still) Reformed writer James B. Jordan.
In 1993, September 22, in fact – my 51st birthday – I realised that it might be the case, not that the Reformation had been wrong in throwing out this or that practice of the Catholic Church, but that it might be the case that the Catholic Church was, simply speaking, the thing it said it was: the fulness of the Body of Christ in the world.
I spent the ten months from then until 29 July, 1994 reading everything I could get my hands on – including, several times, the New Testament and much of the Old (which I had always read through once a year, and still do); all my Reformed writers; a lot of things both pro- and anti-Catholic that good people on the (then-primitive) web sent me. I prayed. I felt, in June, 1994, that I was going to lose my mind, out of fear.
Hence that prayer in July was not a “I’ll throw myself off the parapet of the temple and see what happens.” It was the conclusion of a 20-plus year process of discernment and struggle. Especially important in that time had been the writings of John Henry Newman. But when I made that prayer I quoted, it was just after finishing reading Ronald Knox’s The Belief of Catholics for the second time. I think I knew before I started it that second time where I was going to go – but I had to feel sure.
The wording of the prayer sounds weird, even to me. I put it there, for Jennifer, just to say that, yes, there are so many things one way and another. One must study to the best of one’s ability. I would never, never advise anyone to become a Catholic unless he knew the he must – ‘knew’ with moral certainty, that is. One can never know anything in any other way. Even mathematical proofs depend on their axioms, and knowing the truth of revelation depends on our certainty that it is God Who has spoken.
We must act. Newman concluded his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – his own “Lord, I’m going to become a Catholic unless You stop me” prayer – with the words:
Jason (#901):
As a former anti-Catholic, I can identify with John (#896). That prayer is saying: “Lord, I know that the Catholic Church is wrong! I know it! But I am not so sure any more. It seems the more I read, the more it makes sense. The more I pray, the more it calls to me. If you are not behind this, please, I beg you Lord, help me! I don’t want to become Catholic, but I think you are leading me there.”
This is what Chesterton describes as the third stage of conversion in his book Catholicism and Conversion:
Also, if you seach for John’s name, you can find the series of essays on his conversion, and read the quote he gave in context.
Ave Maria!
fra Charles (#906)
Actually, Brother, I had long got past that. Even in September, 1993, I could no longer say “I know that the Catholic Church is wrong” By then it was “I fear that the Catholic Church might be right!” – a much more terrifying thing :-)
In my 1994 decision on that ‘plane, it was, rather like this (long version):
I vividly remember coming out of the terminal in Auckland airport. My wife – who had not yet made her own decision – picked me up. Before I could say anything, she looked at me, and said, “You’ve decided, haven’t you?” I replied, “Yes.” “You’re going to do it, aren’t you?” “Yes.”
We both burst into tears.
It is Easter Day in Auckland as I write this now. I cannot begin to touch on the surface of the depth of joy and gratitude I have to God for strengthening me that day, almost twenty years ago, to make and stick to that decision. My cup truly runs over.
Surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia!
I was raised Catholic, and after much study of the catechism and church doctrines, it became clear to me that the RCC’s doctrine has been corrupted by the introduction of greek philosophy. The reformists inherited much of the same errors too. So far, the Orthodox church seems to me like it is the best option with doctrines that seem correct and substantiated only by Christian theology. They didn’t try to use human philosophy to explain God, and that is key.
George, could you explain specifically which Greek philosophies you are referring to and how they relate to the RCC/Protestant theologies in question? Thanks!
Dr. Anders,
In a discussion with a Protestant friend about the nature of the Eucharist and the differences between Luther, Calvin and Zwingli, I made mention, that Calvin taught that a proper understanding of the Eucharist was necessary for salvation. He responded by saying the following, “If you mean this, then you are claiming that Calvin denied that Luther was saved. This is false.”
Would Calvin be inconsistent in this way ? Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated, kind sir.
Hi Reggie,
Calvin understood that there was tension between his own Eucharistic theology and that of Luther. He was also very appreciative of Luther, and, I would agree with your friend, would never have repudiated him so utterly. Calvin also clearly taught that proper Eucharistic theology was a necessity. So how does he reconcile these things? He claimed that Luther used hyperbole.
On the Necessity of proper eucharistic theology, Calvin said:
On Luther, Calvin wrote:
And again, speaking about the Marburg Colloquy, he wrote:
You can read the entire treatise here:
I had a similar journey only to return to the reformed camp. To be sure, the Fathers in general evince a more Catholic spirituality. On the other hand, scriptures and the finished canon were not readily available and none of the earliest Fathers knew anything of a supreme pontiff, purgatory, praying to saints, and the earliest docs such as Clement 1, Justin Martyr, and the didache present a more reformed approach to ecclesiology, liturgy, and Clement in particular, to election and justification by faith. So, yes, it may seem uncomfortable that the Church was corrupted so early, and yet the scriptures, the early Fathers, and human nature don’t lie. Indeed, as for the latter, the Pharisees claimed the same as Catholics – “there was an oral tradition alongside the written” as a means of justifying themselves. And, so far as we can tell, there was no “pure” Judaism even though it was started by God in the same way the Church was. But here’s the thing – if ancient Christians really believed as the Roman Church claims, they would have voiced it similarly. The very idea that they left it out of their writings because they were focused on other matters is absurd if such really was part of their belief system. Just like the Cardinal I heard preach at St John the Latern’s in Rome. His text was John 3:16 and he only preached about 10 minutes. But he couldn’t help mention Madonna at least 4 times. Why? Because faith isn’t easily compartmentalized. So, if the early Fathers were really Roman Catholic, they would’ve clearly evinced through their many writings. But if I were to leave Geneva, I’d go East rather than West. Because its certainly the case that the history of tradition (and overall lack of corruption) supports Orthodoxy’s claims far more strongly than Rome’s.
Hi Jon,
I really appreciate the comment. There is obviously a lot packed in here and many discrete claims about history, exegesis, and hermeneutics, as well as a number of philosophical assumptions about arguments from silence, doctrinal development, and so forth. I can’t go into all of them right now. May I suggest you look at the lead article: The Bishops of History and the Catholic faith? I think it would be particularly helpful in drawing out some of those assumptions.
Thanks again,
David
Jon,
The strength of an argument from silence depends on many things, one of which is the number of surviving documents we have. If only 2 works of a given writer survive, and in fragments at that, the omission of issue X from both of them doesn’t mean that the writer never wrote about X.
For an example, suppose that our only surviving works of Calvin’s were “The Golden Booklet of the True Christian Life” and a few scraps of the Institutes. Predestination is nowhere mentioned in the Booklet. To the best of my knowledge, it is not mentioned in absolutely every paragraph of the Institutes. It is very conceivable, then, that we could have no first-hand account of Calvin’s commitment to predestination.
Arguments from silence are much more compelling when we have oodles and oodles of documents. This happens more frequently when we study those who wrote in the past five centuries or so.
JonX, If you are tempted to go East, make stop in Wittenberg first.
Wow! what an article for the Catholic faith. I have just joined the Catholic Church after 20 years as a Protestant. I enjoyed this article very much and like listening to Dr. Anders on the radio show. I also came from the Calvinist camp; first Orthodox Presbyterian, then United Reformed, and finally Reformed Episcopal Church. This journey gave me a broad view of how these churches historically grew up out of schism and private interpretation. The compromising of doctrine to build bridges to the world continues to degrade the evangelical churches, while these smaller reformed communities shrink and become more marginalized. Rome is the only bastion of hope, it seems, to stem the tide of worldly conformity and ungodly liberalism.
A friend recently sent me this article, and it looks like I am a little late to the game. Nonetheless, here are some thoughts, for what they are worth:
1) Dr. Anders wants to judge Calvin by modern Evangelical doctrine and practice. It should be the other way around. While I am an Evangelical, I do not support or agree with the vast majority of how Evangelicals practice and profess the Christian faith, for the same reasons that Dr. Anders put down. Calvin gets a lot of things right that Evangelicals have ignored. And this was not Calvin’s fault. We Evangelicals disregard church authority, we privatize a faith that is communal, we minimize the sacraments (I say “we” because I believe an Evangelical Bible church is still the Church, and its problems are my problems, whether or not I agree with what they do and how they do it. I feel this way about the Roman Catholic church. The ramped pedophilia among the clergy and the muddle-headed thinking by the Pope is my problem because it is the Church’s problem.) If Dr. Anders saw the problem with the Evangelical Church, he should have realized not how Calvin should be taught less, but how some of Calvin should be taught more and taught properly.
2) Dr. Anders wants to pin the sins of the modern Evangelical church on Calvin. This is hardly the right response. The modern Evangelical sins of the church are not Calvin’s but the church’s. If the church has used Calvin’s teachings to get there, that is not Calvin’s fault, and as Anders points out, it is not even true to Calvin. If Anders wants to give me twenty Protestant churches who have gone off the deep end for perverting Calvin’s teachings, I’d be happy to give him fifty who have been set aright by following Calvin’s teachings.
3) The standard by which Anders treats Calvin is no proper standard at all for determining whether one’s theological conclusions are correct. Dr. Anders enjoys citing Calvin’s blessings and sins in the church without a due process of clearly articulating the two. This is a kind of interwoven ad hominem (to the man). This kind of standard wouldn’t hold for critiquing much of the Church throughout history, even the Church today. Just because one’s followers went off the deep end doesn’t mean that person was off the deep end. Likewise, just because a man had sin doesn’t he didn’t get many things right.
4) Dr. Anders’s solution to the Evangelical problem (and there is an Evangelical problem) is to turn Roman Catholic. I don’t believe this is our only solution. When someone asks me why I’m not Catholic, I encourage them to go here: https://www.leithart.com/2012/05/21/too-catholic-to-be-catholic/
5) As a Calvinist, I don’t believe Calvin is Jesus, and I don’t believe Calvin gets everything right. I don’t even think the fully matured picture of the Church is the picture Calvin painted. Calvin is an important voice among many. In my estimation, Protestants should not go to Rome. They should go here: https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2013/11/the-end-of-protestantism
Dr. Anders didn’t discover Catholicism at all. He discovered the sins of the modern Evangelical Church in America and decided to pin them on one man. Anders discovered himself, not face up to the heavens, but face down gazing at the harlot bride on earth.
As I studied my way toward the Catholic Church, what bothered me most was the flippant way in which scripture was handled. While saying that scripture is God-inspired, inerrant and the sole rule of faith, pastors were misquoting it. They cherry-picked specific verses to support their views and took them out of Biblical context, often aggregiously so. They said the Bible was literally true and that we should take Jesus at His word, and yet told us not to take Jesus’ words in John 6, where He was obviously not telling a parable, literally. The books they leave out of the cannon leave a hole in the continuity of scripture, and rather than filling that void with historical fact, they spoke of a dichotomy between ‘God of the Old Testament’ and ‘God of the New Testament’. (As if God is somehow schizophrenic). When I began looking at scripture from a liturgical viewpoint, it began to make more sense. The continuity from Old Testament to New Testament became clear, and I began to see it as the only sane way to view scripture. It simply makes more sense when one looks at the contexts, purposes and cultural backdrops of scripture. The way Old Testament scriptures become a foreshadowing of the fullness of God’s Kingdom in Christ Jesus is astounding. It can be easy to miss if you have no competent teacher to guide you. I wanted to be right but I was willing to be wrong about Catholics if that was the truth when I asked the Holy Spirit to guide me through scripture. The reality of Christ establishing One Church with One earthly head, the truth of the real presence in communion, the establishment of baptism as the new circumcision, and the disciples as the new order of priests in the heavenly kingdom all became evident to me. The way all of the things were prefigured in the Old Testament tells me that Jesus did, indeed have other witnesses to who He was. I never heard about these things from Protestants.
If you wanted to get back to the faith delivered once and for all, why did you go with the church that split in 1054 from the orthodox church. It seems, at least from the history books that the orthodox church is the single, longest running church tradition out there. It seems like it was the roman orthidox bishop turned pope who went rouge and started the western church.
Hi Jake,
Thanks for the comment. When you suggest that I join the Orthodox Church from which the Catholic church (allegedly) split in 1054, I assume you mean the Byzantine Orthodox whose Patriarch is in Constantinople. Why do you hold that the Byzantine Orthodox have the oldest tradition? The Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Syrians, Ethiopians) would argue that they have the oldest tradition. And the Assyrians would argue that theirs is older still? And why would you hold that antiquity alone is a sufficient marker of Christian authenticity?
In the Creed, we confess One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As for apostolicity, the Catholic Church surely has that, having been founded by Christ and transmitted by Petrine succession – something even the orthodox confess about Rome. As for Unity, the Catholic Church alone has the means for maintaining the visible unity of the Church, as the diversity of Orthodoxies bear witness, and as for holiness, the Catholic Church is endowed with plentiful saints and the means of sanctification. As for Catholicity, “the verdict of the whole world is conclusive.” The Catholic faith is always and everywhere the same, unlike the various “orthodoxies” which have split over cultural, political, and theological issues.
Furthermore, the theology of the modern orthodox – including as it does a dogmatic rejection of the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome – is novel and not ancient. You will not find the Greek or Syrian theologians of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries arguing this way. They floated the idea at Constantinople in 381, but it was quickly rejected.
Thanks for your thoughts,
David
Brian (re:#917),
Welcome to “Called to Communion,” and thank you for your comment. I am a Catholic, but I agree with your observation that *if* a Reformed, Calvinist church is going to claim to be so, then that church should actually teach more of what Calvin himself taught and less of the thinking of broad, contemporary evangelicalism. This is simply a matter of consistency.
On your commending of Dr. Peter Leithart’s “too catholic to be Catholic” thinking, his article of that name has been been addressed at length by a Called to Communion contributor here: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/05/too-catholic-to-be-catholic-a-response-to-peter-leithart/
If we could stop with the pettiness of latching onto a word that someone utters or writes and then tearing it apart to prove their own point. Whenever you have a desire it’s for that which is lacking, and that’s regardless of whether you’re protestant, catholic, whatever . And how on Earth do you omit or gloss over history if you don’t have anything to hide. You can’t just pick and choose from history when you’re informing a congregation. Don’t deny the faithful with information that’s out there or give them a well condensed version. I’m sure if David had found that desire fulfilled in the Protestant church, Protestants would be thrilled and we wouldn’t be quibbling here now. I think the Protestant church has a far more pressing issue than focusing on words and getting all upset over it. Aren’t we up to 30,000 and counting splinter groups, sorry, denominations already within the Protestant Church. Perhaps concentrating on the discord and divide within should be your real preoccupation. Protestants need to concern themselves about getting their own thousands of houses in order and not arguing with the Catholic Church about it. It’s the so called reformers who walked away, not the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has been standing at the same spot for close to 2,000 years, it’s others who have chosen to move away. No matter, you will find the Church at the same address, in case you ever want to stop by, that’s only if you really want to. No one’s forcing anybody. You can come and go as you please, the Church will still be at the same location, as always.
Thank you Dr. Anders for your conversion story that the layest of lay people such as myself can understand. I just entered The Church this past Easter and feel such peace and relief at finally knowing I can be assured I’m being taught Truth. And most importantly have the Sacraments to help me on my journey.
I only read the replies up to number 71 but have a question for the Bojidar fellow…if he’s still around here. You seem to be hung up on Dr. Anders’ “emotional” aspect of his conversion. When looking upon Christ Crucified, is your response merely intellectual?
With Charity,
Debbie
Yes, Dr Anders, you decided, you didn’t like, you found, you discovered, had always assumed, studied, questioned, etc.
As a Catholic convert, are you not claiming to be master of your own fate, the captain of your own soul?
Wouldn’t you say that you yielded to Christ speaking in his one and only true church (Rome)?
But doesn’t make you ultimately the one who chooses to “let” Christ master you, to “allow” Christ to captain your soul?
This sounds distinctly different than (dare I say, the opposite of?) converts to Christ Jesus our Lord. The latter speak of conversion as a monergistic event, an unilateral act of God, not the result of a cooperative effort following research and rumination.
Hello Hugh,
Thank you so much for the comment. Let us assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and that God did not move me monergistically to Catholic faith, but that I arrived at Catholic faith strictly through a process of research and rumination. That really doesn’t do anything to destroy the arguments I make in the text – that Calvin taught a doctrine substantially different from modern evangelical protestantism, that Calvin was a proud, censorious man who was intolerant of religious dissent, that Calvin did not encourage private interpretation of Scripture, and so forth. In fact, your comment would seem to be an example of the ad hominem fallacy: “Your argument is wrong because you are an unconverted person.”
However, for what it’s worthy, I am also puzzled by your conviction that true conversion must be experienced phenomenologically as something overwhelming one’s psychological faculties. (Truth claims and argument cannot be essential determinants of a “real” conversion.) You would discount the claims of the article merely because I arrived at them through a process of academic research?
But I may be misunderstanding you. Perhaps your objection is not to the process of academic discovery, but to the fact that I do not describe an accompanying experience of shattering, emotional upheaval sensed as something coming directly from God? If so, how do you know from my silence that I had no such experience? Perhaps I had an experience like this, but preferred not to discuss it. How, moreover, would you know that every authentic Christian conversion must be accompanied by such an experience? Even if monergism were true, how would you know that God’s work in the soul cannot be experienced as something intellectual? Why could God not work monergistically to bring someone to christian faith through a process of academic discovery?
Thank you again,
David
Thank you, Dr Anders, for graciously allowing my post, and the added courtesy of your reply.
Sorry we’ve lost you -hopefully only temporarily- but will work to recover you for Presbyterianism (or, at least, SOME Protestant variety of the faith) and get you back from your “Roman Holiday.”
Will reply ASAP.
Hi. I just wanted to make a couple of observations. I admit I didn’t read all 925 posts, but I read most of the first 100. It seems that the few posters who were making a so-called argument against Dr. Anders’ conversion story (this is mostly what it is – not a scholarly article, as Dr. Anders had no intentions of writing a scholarly article) that his conversion was for “emotional” reasons only go by this logic:
First off, this must be understood:
There is only ONE thing that Protestants unanimously agree on, outside of the basic doctrines on God and Christology (i.e. God is one, God is a Trinity of Persons, God is merciful, Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity come in the Flesh and is the Savior of the world, and so on):
Namely:
1. The Catholic Church is wrong.
Their opinions range everywhere (as with everything else in Protestant land) from the Catholic Church is a Christian organization but some theological errors have crept in to the Catholic Church is pure evil, the church of satan. Even those that will admit that the Catholic Church is Christian (actually, the Catholic Church *is* Christianity), will say that ‘if’ they are saved, it is only by their ignorance and the mercy of Christ and is in spite of being Catholic and they would be much better off joining the _____________ church (insert their denomination here) or some other Protestant denomination.
#1 above is their starting premise for everything relating to the Catholic Church
Given this, the particular argument in question goes like this:
1. The Catholic Church is wrong
2. Dr. Anders “claims” he converted from Calvinism to Catholicism after years of study based on intellectual arguments, dispassionate reasoning, evaluating historical evidence, and so on.
Therefore, #2 must be false, because you can’t legitimately do the things he claims he did and become Catholic, because of #1, so he *must* have converted for emotional, sentimental reasons alone. Of course, this is nonsense. It is nonsense because they falsely believe that the Catholic Church is not the one and only true Church, established by Jesus Christ.
That’s my main point
To continue:
So, instead of addressing the points he brought up and either granting them as valid or refuting them as invalid with evidence, they latched onto his statement that “one of the most satisfying things about my discovery of the Catholic Church is that it fully satisfied my desire for historical rootedness” AS IF Dr. Anders’ “argument” (and, as I said, he wasn’t really even attempting to make any argument in this purposefully non-scholarly article anyway) was based on this statement, which, again is nonsense. And, I could add, as if there is something wrong with having a desire for historical rootedness fulfilled. On the contrary, if
1. You have no desire or see no need for your brand of Christianity (that is to say, one of the thousands of Protestant heretical sects) to be historically rooted
or
2. You see, correctly, that authentic Christianity ‘must’ be historically rooted, but you can also see that your brand of Christianity is ‘not’ historically rooted
then there is a serious problem that must be resolved.
In my opinion, the main reason for #1 above is that they have basically thrown their hands up in the air and given up all attempts (there aren’t really any more to make) to effect unity or to come up with any consistent, logical theology that any two of them can agree on for more than two seconds, and have thrown away all concepts of “organized religion” (there seems to be a lot of organization going on in the NT, but no matter – they are now in full agreement with neopagans, the “I’m-spiritual-but-not-religious” people of the last 15 years or so, and atheists in their common disdain for “organized religion”), creeds (since they can’t agree on anything either “essential” or “non-essential”, as if such a concept existed in the Bible, to which they look as their *sole* rule of faith – its absence is no matter), and their own man-made ideas of “denominations”, to form “non-denominational” churches whose basic creed is I have a personal relationship with Jesus (as if all that Christ did and taught – like instituting the sacraments, for example – can be boiled down to a “personal relationship”, but no matter) and I have my Bible (which they treat as something it never claims to be, and misinterpret anyway, but no matter). This is the “lowest-common-denominator” Christianity Dr. Anders was referring to. Yes, I know I’m painting with a very broad brush, but the brush ‘is’ very broad – there is no other one to use. This brush “covers”, so to speak, many if not most Protestants these days and is covering more and more of them with each passing year. I see evidence of it as I drive around in my car each day. More and more churches. Two churches being built while one closes down. A church formerly called *whatever* now called *whatever*. More and more strip mall “churches”. Since an increasing number don’t believe in “organized religion” (I’ve even seen the claim that Christianity is not a religion) or that there is any need for a church at all, I guess many just stay home and do Bible study on Sunday. What Paul has to say regarding those who did just such a thing in his time (it’s not complementary) is no matter.
It’s time to face it folks. The Reformation is *over*. It actually wasn’t a “re-formation” of anything at all, it was a revolt and a de-formation. The actual “Reformation” that occurred is known as the “Counter-Reformation”. It’s time to come home, fulfilling Jesus’ prayer and express desire, so that the world may know that the Father has sent Him.
Let’s be One again! Let’s embrace the Faith once-for-all handed on to the saints. I like how that phrase has a double meaning here, at least in English. It was handed on *once* for all time, and it was handed on once *for all people*.
One Faith, One Baptism, One Lord of all. Just as there is only One Lord, so, logically, is there only One Truth about Him, which He has graciously revealed to us, ergo “One Faith”.
God bless
Dr. Anders,
God bless you and yours. I love listening to “Called to Communion”. It ‘always’ amazes me how the answers you give to your callers are so cogent, logical, and just well-said. Most people couldn’t even approach this if they were well-studied and had many hours to think up and ‘write’ a response given the same time/length limitations. Praised be to God! I think you are truly doing His work and are having such a great effect bringing us back to the communion we once had, which Christ expressly desires. Your kindness, charity, and calm demeanor are also much to be commended.
David C. in #927 said:
“In my opinion, the main reason for #1 above is that they have basically thrown their hands up in the air and given up all attempts (there aren’t really any more to make) to effect unity or to come up with any consistent, logical theology that any two of them can agree on for more than two seconds.”
When I first read that, I thought it was a bit unfair. But when I looked at my own experience in Reformed Presbyterianism, I COL’d (chuckled out loud) because I realize that in the last year or two of that experience I had painted myself so deep into a doctrinal corner there literally was not one person who could possibly agree with me on every point of doctrine. And I am talking about important stuff like the sacraments. And this was from a guy whao desired unity among all Christians more than most of my Presbyterian friends.
It was by necessity that this happened to me though. Following Sola Scriptura, using scripture and tradition as my guide, I gradually became convinced of a certain flavor of each doctrine I studied, to the point where I was basically a denomination of one guy. I didn’t set out to do that, but looking back, I really don’t see any other way it could play out. I could either choose the “doctrine doesn’t matter approach of my early Pentecostal days, or paint myself into the doctrinal corner. Of course all my Presbyterian brothers would say all those differences didn’t really matter, and we were still one Church because we agreed on the “important” stuff. But that just begs the question to an unacceptable degree. What is counted as important is the whole issue, so in the end to arbitrarily say that the only things that matter are what we happen to agree on (the Trinity.. I guess?) is circular. I literally could not even say the apostles creed and agree, because many Presbyterians (let alone rad-reformation types) can not say that baptism forgives sins. When you can no longer say the most basic creed in all of Christian history together, there is a serious problem! Unfortunately it is a 500 year old problem now that continues to metastasize.
I thank God that I can now share a full, rich set of beliefs with millions of other believers by, ironically, simply believing one short bit of doctrine: “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.”
That small door opens to a whole new world of unity and truth.
David Meyer (#929)
Your description of your experience also caused me to COL :-) In about 1990 I challenged my elders on the issue of paedocommunion. Our elders said that a person should be admitted to Communion only when he was of ‘marriageable age’ (their term). Being a communicant member in our denomination (Reformed Churches of New Zealand) also meant that you were a voter in congregational matters. I had been convinced (by arguments from Jim Jordan) that baptised infants should not be withheld from Communion. I wrote a letter to Session, objecting to the ‘sin’ (my word) of withholding the Lord’s Supper from our baptised children.
They called me up and did a strange (from the point of view of the totally independent-minded Protestant that many whom I knew are) thing. They told me that I had placed myself under their authority; that I didn’t have to agree with them; but that it was my duty to submit.
I did – best thing I ever did. When, at the end of 1994, I told my pastor and elders (with tears on both their and my side) that I must become a Catholic, I said that one fundamental thing they had taught me was the reality of Church authority: that Jesus had set up a Kingdom, not a supper club; that the writer to the Hebrews had told us to submit to those who had the ‘rule’ over us; and that the authority my elders had had been broken back in the Sixteenth Century. I had, indeed, to submit to the authority of Christ as exercised through His Church – and that that meant I had to submit to the authority of the then Bishop of Auckland, Denis Browne.
I was received into the Church 24 December, 1995.
jj
Hi David Anders and all,
It seems that the issue of church authority and the church’s ability to enforce and punish people and enforce unity of thought and doctrine is the root of this article. To say that “Calvin made me Catholic” by being disgusted with his harshness, and yet not see that the Roman Catholic Church did all of that for centuries and that Calvin inherited that culture, seems to be an oversight. Calvin and the Geneva government enforced punishments (as in the examples given) even on issues of the Lord’s supper and baptism. The Zurich government (with Zwingli) condemned Felix Manz for re-baptizing himself – and drowned him. That was disgusting and shocking the first time I heard of it. Luther was also too harsh against the ana-baptists and of course, his writings against the Jews at the end of his was disgusting. (promoted violence against them). The calling for violence and physical punishments by the state is just immoral and shameful (for things other than capital murder, rape). The great mistake of the church was the total unity of government-state – punishment of heretics, beginning with Theodosius (Emperor from 380-392 AD), and continuing with Justinian and Heraclius – the harsh treatment of the Nestorians and especially the Mia-physites/ Mono-physites (Copts in Egypt, and other mono-physite groups in Syria and the Armenians, was a great mistake and caused them to be bitter against the Chalcedonian Creed and Byzantine rules – so much that they welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators from their Chalcedonian-Byzantine masters and oppressors; at least initially. (The Muslims were deceptive and later destroyed Christianity in most places, by the Dhimmi status and laws, as history shows.) Now, I agree with the Chalcedonian Creed that Christ has 2 natures in one person, but I disagree with the harsh governmental punishments.
As a Reformed Baptist, and understanding that Calvin was just wrong on the state-church government and infant baptism (but right on election, the gospel, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura) – it just does not convince me at all that Calvin would move me to become Roman Catholic, as it did for you, David.
Christopher Lake (and one other above who said he was Reformed Baptist. Maybe there are others, but they seem to few compared to other infant baptizing Protestants) is interesting because he is one of the few Reformed Baptists who converted to Roman Catholicism, that I know of. Yes, there are some more I have heard of but not as many. There are more theologically Arminian type bapstist that convert to Rome. Most of the folks here who write for C2C are former Presbyterians or other paedo-baptism Protestant background.
Christopher mentioned James 2 and the issue of Sola Fide as one of the his main issues that caused him to go toward Rome. That is not the subject of this post, so I won’t try to refute it much, except to say that it is not hard to understand James 2:24, when one carefully studies the whole paragraph of James 2:14-26 and that dikaow can mean “vindicate”, “proven to be true”, “confirmed” – as it does in Matthew 11:19, Luke 7:35, and 1 Timothy 3:16 – “vindicated by the Spirit”.
“and wisdom is proved right (from dikaow / δικαοω) by her children.” – Matthew 11:19
καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς
Luke 7:35 (parallel passage)
καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς πάντων
“and justified/proven right, wisdom is, from all of her children”
given the other things in the paragraph (James 2:14-26) also, the contrast of “saying” and “claiming” that one has faith vs. the showing and demonstrating true faith, the clear teaching of James 2:19 that intellectual assent to the truth that God is one, etc. is not what true faith is; and the quotes and allusions and the order of when those things happened in the life of Abraham, from Genesis 15:6 and Genesis 22 show that the work of obedience in Genesis 22 was the fruit and result of justifying faith, which came before, and which the apostle Paul teaches in Romans 3, 4, and 5 and the book of Galatians – shows the Protestant understanding of James 2:14-26 to be the right one – “we are justified by faith alone, but true faith in Christ does not stay alone, it results in good works, fruit, growth, change, deeper levels of repentance, holiness, sanctification, perseverance in the faith.”
Hi Ken,
Thanks for the comments. You wrote:
And yet, I did not become a Catholic because I was disgusted by Calvin’s harshness. As I write in the article, Calvin showed me that questions of ecclesiology were crucially important to Christian faith. Church authority, sacraments, liturgical life, teaching authority – all of these things are very important. The question then becomes, “What Church has the strongest claim to that authority.” I did not reject Calvin’s claim to authority because he was harsh, but because his claim was arbitrary. I did not accept the catholic claim because Catholic bishops are not harsh, but because their claim to authority was grounded in Scripture, history, and reason.
-David
Thanks David,
The harshness, pride, and stubbornness of Calvin and his treatment of the people you gave examples of (Jerome Bolsec, etc.) seemed to be a great emphasis of your article.
The Roman Catholic claim to authority does not seem to be based in Scripture at all – nada. Matthew 16:16-18 – there is nothing about Rome, Roman Catholicism, successors to Peter, infallibility, or the successors’ absolute jurisdictional authority, or any guarantee that future leaders of churches (elders/overseers/pastors) – would not go wrong doctrinally, etc.
History – ? Wow. That is even weaker. Just the fact that 86 bishops with Cyprian and Firmillian objected to bishop of Rome Stephen’s claim around 257-258 AD is enough to completely destory all arguments for Roman Catholic authority claims.
Reason – ? even weaker – only God is infallible, and infallibility as an attribute is based on His character and holiness – to claim that the RCC Popes are infallible, and yet qualify it that it only means a protection from doctrinal error, but that can only be determined hundreds of years later (Honorius was in the 600s and he was clearly condemned as a heretic for hundreds of years by councils and subsequent Popes) – I don’t see how you can ignore or justify or explain that away.
Tertullian and Irenaeus used the succession of bishops as teaching against Gnosticism, Docetism, Marcionism, and anti-Trinitarian heresies, and heresies relating to the Deity and humanity of Christ, etc. and against the idea that the OT was bad and there was a demi-ugre “evil- god” who created matter, etc. Since Protestantism agrees with that doctrinally (that those heresies) – it seems to me anachronistic to use their statements about the succession of bishops against the 16 century context of totally different issues than the heresies of the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Hi Ken,
I do think that Calvin was proud, judgmental, and unyielding. That counts against his character. He was not a good example (in my opinion) of Christian virtue. That was significant to me theologically in one sense. My Protestant background placed very little emphasis on the idea of an authoritative teaching office. However, we usually appreciated authoritative teachers while “judging them by their fruits,” if you will. Calvin’s own claims to authority were similarly subjective. He did not appeal so much to an official commission, but to his personal sense of vocation. He also thoroughly criticized the moral failings of Catholic Bishops. Seen in that light, his character called into question for me the legitimacy of that sense of vocation. It just seemed like self-aggrandizing.
By contrast, Catholic bishops receive their calling not from an interior experience, but from a visible, objective call – by an external authority. Their character is important. They should have good character. But if they fail in character, it doesn’t call into question the reality of their objective commission.
Whether or not the issues you raise invalidate that objective call can be addressed on other threads. (This one is about Calvin.)
Thanks again,
David
David,
But Calvin never claimed to be infallible, whereas Roman Catholic Popes started claiming they were infallible – in the middle ages – seems Innocent III, Boniface VIII with Unam Sanctum (1302), etc. are examples of that claim that took centuries to make it dogma in 1870.
The letter of Calvin to Madame De Cany in 1552 actually does not say who he is talking about. see foonote 2, on page 323. The Letters of John Calvin, at google books, edited by Dr. Jules Bonnet. It could have been about Bolsec, but we don’t know. Bonnet points out that Calvin wrote to Bullinger earlier that year of Bolsec’s exile by the government – he was exiled. But the person he speaks of in the letter escaped, and Calvin seems to have wanted to have him burned at the stake, whoever he was. “And I assure you Madame, that had he not so soon escaped, I should, by way of discharging my duty, have done my best to bring him to the stake.” (ibid, page 232)
I would direct you to Philip Holtrop’s discussion of this text.
Holtrop considers the substantial circumstantial evidence in this case, as well as Calvin’s views on punishment for heresy. In summary, Calvin fully condoned the death penalty for religious dissent such as Bolsec’s. Holtrop, Bolsec Controversy, 1: 212-229.
Ken,
You wrote:
I’m not so sure about that. Calvin didn’t work out a clear dogma of “Calvinian infallbility,” with all the fine distinctions one finds at Vatican I. However, Calvin claimed an enormous amount of doctrinal authority, and clearly believed both that his interpretations of Scripture were without error and that the laity had a moral obligation to assent to them.
Not only did Calvin claim prophetic authority to interpret the text of Scripture in his normal operation as a preacher, but also claimed that he had a God given authority to enforce obedience to that interpretation. This is a good deal more doctrinally ambitious than what Catholics claim for the Pope.
“For doctrine obtains force and authority where the minister not only explains to all together what they owe Christ, but also has the right and means to require that it be kept by those whom he has observed are either disrespectful or languid toward his teaching.” Inst. 4.12.2.
“The ministers of the word,” he argues, “are to be treated with honor and reverence, as being clothed with the authority of his ambassadors, whom he would have to be acknowledged even as his own angels and messengers.” ; Letters 1: 144-145.
“We … fight manfully, with a stout heart and unwearied zeal, for that sacred authority and power of spiritual jurisdiction over the members of the Church which ought ever to be held inviolable. ” Calvin to Myconius, 14 March 1542; CO 11: 379; Letters 1: 144.
In his 5th Sermon on Ezekiel, Calvin wrote:
I would also ask that you look at my article on Calvin’s doctrine of implicit faith.
Wow, David. Calvin had popish aspirations? Sounds like he suffered from a Romish hangover.
Thanks for reminding us that *all* men are sinners at the end of the day, that even the brightest lights are sometimes too “dim,” and for reminding us, via Calvin, that total depravity is true!
Thanks David for your answers; you make a good case for Calvin’s understanding of the pastoral and teaching ministry with authority and jurisdiction for church discipline. I would say that he inherited that church culture from the Roman Catholicism that controlled all of European culture, sometimes known as the “Medieval synthesis”. (that everything was bound together in unity of European culture and the Church was the unifying authority and fount which influenced and controlled everything else.)
As a baptist, and one who rejects infant baptism as valid or Biblical, and also I reject sacralism- complete church-state unity with force of torture and punishment for sins, except for first degree murder and proven violent rape; Calvin’s sense of his own authority does not bother me that much, for he and Luther and Zwingli and other Reformed leaders had to have strong personalities to lead the movement against the elephant-like power of the Roman Catholic Church.
I agree that the government of Geneva was too harsh on people, but those were the realities of the times in which people lived back then. It took a long time after the Reformation for the baptist movement and a kind of separation of church and state to really work itself out. Seeing the reaction of the Egyptian Copts and other Miaphysites to the Byzantine/Chalcedonian harshness – it produced a bitterness in the larger culture that allowed Islam to conquer almost all of the Eastern Christian world. ( I mentioned this above)
I would say the same reaction is in all of us modern Evangelical Christians who sincerely believer’s baptism is the Biblical way of baptism – after repentance and faith in Christ with clear testimony and understanding. To read about what the Zurich city council did to Felix Manz – the first time I read it; it was shocking and disgusting and for me, proves how wrong all the harshness was on all sides – on the Romanist side, on Calvin’s side, Zurich, and the Chalcedonian-Byzantine harshness against the Copts and other Mia-physites/Monophysites. All of those things are discredited and a bad witness for the truth of Christ.
I thank God we are free from that culture and forced unity today. I am also grateful for Calvin and Luther and Zwingli on the other doctrines that they taught – especially the bondage of the will, Sola Fide, election, God’s grace in monergistically drawing the sinner to Himself (John 6:44; Acts 16:14, Ephesians 2:4-5; Romans 8:28-34), etc.
I have read a lot of the comments, but not all – over 900 is just too much; sorry for being late to everything.
I am wondering if in all the 900 + comments, did anyone make any comments on this comment of yours, David?
It is too much to cut and paste from all these passages, etc. but I went to ccel.org and read Calvin’s comments on John 3:5, John 1:12-13; Romans 10:9-15; Titus 3:4-5; and his writings on conversion, faith, God’s grace, (Institutes, book 2, chapters 6-14, on the conversion of the will), etc. and I just did not see what you are saying at all. He makes a clear case for “personal conversion” and being born again is by God’s grace working on the will and changing us, but justification is by faith alone.
Calvin’s comment about baptism with fuller context:
Calvin on John 3:5
Calvin here is clear against the external power of an ex opere operato baptismal regeneration. He even says at the end of the comment that “I cannot bring myself to believe that Christ speaks of baptism”. He seems to equate water and Spirit together as one thing, the internal cleansing and gaining of a new heart (conversion), as Ezekiel 36:26-27 taught, for which most scholars agree that Jesus if referring to and rebuking Nicodemus for not knowing this OT passage and teaching.
Because Calvin also believed in covenant infant baptism, it is hard to tell what he means, but, I can see this, when applied to an adult, if someone hears the gospel/word of God, and then (apparently, claiming to) repents of their sin and trusts Christ as Savior and Lord, but then says, “I refuse to the baptized” or join a church (Calvin’s “neglecting baptism”), then I think it is true that one is “excluded from salvation”, because it shows the person’s faith was not true faith in Christ. I agree that following the Lord in baptism and church membership are evidences of true faith and necessary to prove one has true conversion. (there are exceptions in pioneer areas where there are no churches but somehow the word or Scriptures or evangelism has taken place, that there is true faith, but mature churches with a plurality of elders is still non existent. I know personally of this happening in the Muslim world, and I assume this happens in certain areas in Tribal, Hindu, and Buddhists, and communist/atheist areas also. But there are also lots of house church movements in these areas also.) That is how I would take Calvin to mean here in John 3:5, that when one claims to have faith in Christ, but refuses to be baptized, in that sense he/she has “excluded” oneself from salvation by neglecting one of the main fruits and evidences of true faith – being baptized into Christ and His Church. But because all of Europe was already an “infant baptism” culture, the first Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli and all who continued to hold onto infant baptism) did not seem to have a good emphasis or explaining how it works in a context of missions, evangelism, and adult conversion.
David,
On Calvin claiming infallibility you say,
Yes, when the Word of God is preached the congregation has a duty to obey the teaching of the preacher as the Word of God, not because the preacher says it, but because it is the Word of God. Claiming that Calvin saw *himself* imbued with a unique authority is simply not true. Calvin taught the pastoral office was provided authority to preach the Gospel, not to be infallible in himself. You then astonishingly say,
The Pope claims, in his office, to be *infallible* in what he teaches and that demurring from him is at least material heresy. I don’t see you citing anything from Calvin on the authority of the minister that is remotely close to Roman dogma on the papal office. Do you have something else in mind? Can you cite anyone else that argues Calvin’s doctrine of the pastoral office is “a good deal more ambitious” than Rome’s?
Hi Ken,
On Calvin’s view of Baptism and regeneration, please see my article
“Have you been born again.”
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for commenting.
You wrote:
In his remarks to the Genevan company of pastors before his death, Calvin wrote:
“Regarding my doctrine, I have faithfully taught and God has given me the grace to write, which I have done as faithfully as possible, and I have not corrupted a single passage of Scripture.”
Was dissent from that “faithful teaching” considered material heresy?
In Calvin’s Geneva, speaking against Calvin’s doctrine was punishable as both a civil and religious crime. To illustrate, in January of 1552, the consistory accused Jacques Goddard of “blasphemy against John Calvin” because he had defended Jerome Bolsec.
The 1541 Ordonnances Ecclesiastiques had forbidden “dogmatizing against the received doctrine.” Both the pastors and magistrates felt it necessary to restate this prohibition in 1546. Legislation from that year identified “contradicting the word of God” as an offense specifically meriting censure before the consistory. In practice, simply stating in private that you thought Calvin was wrong about something qualified for the indictment. The consistory leveled numerous undefined charges of “blasphemy” and “words against the ministers” throughout this period. It is telling that private remarks in one’s home over dinner could land one in front of the consistory, if they included criticism of Calvin or his doctrine.
Calvin himself was very plain that such remarks were not aimed at him, but at God.
He wrote:
Calvini Opera 6: 48
Though his word may be pronounced by a mortal man, Calvin wrote, “we must be completely certain that God ratifies from heaven whatever is pronounced here in his name.” Those who oppose a prophet, Calvin explains, oppose not the prophet but God. “If someone brings us the word of God and he is despised among us,” he preaches, “we must not look to mortal men as if it were to them that we had done injury, but let us know that God will always be their guardian, and let us feel that it is him we have offended. SC 5:3,11; 6:122
On June 25, 1549, Calvin preached a sermon to deal with the growing problem of theological dissent in Geneva. This is what he wrote:
Calvin didn’t simply teach that one should obey Scripture – which he happened to preach. Rather, Calvin taught that he was a prophet, tasked with giving a proper interpretation of Scripture. People who challenged his doctrine, even on exegetical grounds, were accused of blasphemy and punished harshly. Calvin considered himself a prophet with all the divine authority that entails. As I note above, he thought it absolutely necessary that people understand his words were inviolable. I have not found any evidence that Calvin considered the possibility that he might err. Nor did he ever invite anyone to challenge his interpretation of Scripture.
As for other scholars who have examined these things, I recommend the article “Prophet without a prophecy” by Max Engammare and published in the Journal Church History. Also, Alexandre Ganoczy, Calvin: theologian de l’eglise et du ministere.” And, also, Milner’s book on Calvin’s ecclesiology. I would also recommend my doctoral dissertation: “Prophets from the Ranks of Shepherds: John Calvin and the Challenge of Popular Religion. (1532-1555).” Available from Proquest.
Part of the Reformed polemic against Catholicism in the 16th century was that Rome tolerated way too much theological and devotional diversity. Zwingli’s Clarity and Certainty makes this point. Calvin also makes it frequently. The root of the problem, for Calvin, and the mother of all superstitions is the mistaken notion that one can discern between the good and the bad apart from the rule of God established in the ministers of the rightly ordered church. (Supplementa Calviniana 6:54)
Contrast this with Pope Benedict the XVI. In his book on Jesus of Nazereth, he remarks that the work is not an exercise of the Papal magisterium, and that people are invited to disagree with him freely. On finds nothing even remotely like this in Calvin. Papal authority is strictly defined and delimited. And, it does not extend to judging the interiority of men’s hearts. (Even excommunication in Catholicism is an external penalty, and does not imply that one is cut off from Christ.) By contrast, Calvin taught explicitly that an ecclesial judgment of excommunication meant one was cut off from Christ. THis is one of the things that infuriated the lay people in Geneva – Calvin’s claim to be able to judge their hearts. We read this over and over in the Consistory records.
In sum, Calvin claimed not to have corrupted a single scripture passage, claimed prophetic authority for doing so, insisted that the laity submit to his interpretation on pain of blasphemy, denied lay people the right even to question his exegesis, and declared the ability to discern their hearts by a judgment of excommunication. (Up to 1/15 were excommunicated.) This is a much stronger view of pastoral authority than what we have in Catholicism.
-David
David,
Thanks for your response.
Unfortunately, I’m not quite sure that anything you’ve cited gets you to Calvin’s ecclesiology being “a good deal more doctrinally ambitious.” That Calvin believed in church discipline and that the minister was to be given reverence as he preached the Word of God certainly does not fit the bill. One may want to argue that Calvin was arrogant or unable to see the limits of his exegetical skill, and that may be a fair argument. There is so much more data from Calvin on the nature of the preacher and the fallibility of the church that your thesis lacks explanatory power for a large portion of Calvin’s theological writings and even historical situation.
For example, just today Calvinist International posted an article on Calvin’s belief about pastors [https://calvinistinternational.com/2015/07/08/calvin-pastors-are-like-blind-isaac/]. The quote states,
Similar statements could be enumerated, but Calvin always rooted his opinions not in *himself* but in Scripture. This is in contradistinction from the Pope who roots the entirety of the Christian tradition in his *person.*
One final note, comparing a post-Vatican II Pope on his biblical scholarship and comparing him to Calvin is sleight of hand. The two authors are writing at such different times in such different circumstances on such different topics that there is very little useful in the comparison.
HI Brandon,
The text you cite addresses another issue – namely, do pastors determine in whom the word of God will be efficacious?
Calvin writes, “[The Lord dulled his senses to show] how vain it is for men to strive to change what he has once decreed.”
I have never claimed that Calvin thought he determined who would or would not receive the effectual calling.
Calvin believed much more than that “the pastor should be given reverence.” Rather, Calvin had people prosecuted for blasphemy because they disagreed with his exegesis.
I also understand that Calvin considered his authority grounded in “the word.” But he also held that the pastoral office was uniquely authorized to interpret that word, and that the interpretations of ordained ministers were binding on individual consciences to such an extent that deviation from the party line should be punished as heresy.
You observations point to difficulty in Calvin’s thought that cost him politically in Geneva. Bolsec’s most threatening challenge to Calvin was not his rejection of predestination. It was his claim that he, too, had the spirit and could read and interpret the word of God. Bolsec became a rallying point for opposition to Calvin in Geneva because he articulated what many others thought: Why should we submit to Calvin’s interpretation of Scripture? What authority does he have to compel us if we disagree with what he says about the Bible? Calvin’s answer was that he was divinely authorized to compel their assent and their disobedience was blasphemy and a sign of reprobation.
I completely acknowledge that Calvin claimed to be doing what he did only “in the word,” and yet he denied that power to others. In his mind, what most distinguished his rule from Papal tyranny was that he was right and the Pope was wrong. In comparing himself to the Roman priesthood, he wrote, “In the government of the Church we do not differ from others in anything for which we cannot offer a sufficient reason.” (CO 6:490) His letters are filled with dismissive remarks about the “vulgar plebs,” and he clearly distinguished the clerical state (set off by a rite of ordination) from the laity. Only the former had the authority to interpret Scripture. The latter had to submit and obey in implicit faith on threat of punishment for blasphemy.
Why would I compare Pope Benedict to Calvin? Because this is an article about how Calvin made me a Catholic. Studying Calvin, I realized that life under Calvin in Geneva would have been intolerable for a modern evangelical protestant. It would be intolerable to anyone who was not a party man. Because my tradition tended towards Primitivism and golden age myths about Calvin, this study woke me up the the difficulties in that ideology. By contrast, in becoming Catholic, I was joining a community that had a very well thought out tradition on relating pastoral authority to lay initiative. I realized that I could have both doctrinal certainty arising from the magisterium and I could retain my intellectual freedom and integrity at the same time.
Calvin alleged to offer doctrinal certainty, but no intellectual freedom. Modern evangelicalism offers the freedom, but no certainty. I certainly don’t want to go back to Calvin (whose certainty was spurious, after all), and I’m not going to be an evangelical. Catholicism, by contrast, offered a principled way to distinguish dogma from opinion.
-David
David,
You and your correspondents raise the questions of epistemology and authority.
Perhaps it’s true that “Calvin alleged to offer doctrinal certainty, but no intellectual freedom.” But is this not the Roman way as well? You piously say that, “Catholicism, by contrast, offered a principled way to distinguish dogma from opinion.” But is this ultimately the end of it: Every man deciding whether Rome is right or not? No, one must submit in implicit faith to the magisterial and papal dogmas. He authority and decrees are not up for debate, are they?
It may be true that, “Modern evangelicalism offers the freedom, but no certainty.” Or, at least, not much.
But the alternative is not some (pre)supposed authoritative institution. Nor a man – either in the Vatican, or a 16th Century Swiss pulpit.
The alternative to Calvin & Rome & Evangelicalism is Spirit-led sola scriptura. (Abuse and/ or misunderstanding of which does not invalidate it.) I realize this is anathema to you all, but it’s the only way to know truth: By knowing the One who is Truth through his written word via his Spirit.
Calvin apparently fell prey to some of the same hubristic mistakes he had tried to escape.
7th sentence in post #946 should read, “Her authority and decrees are not up for debate, are they?”
Brandon,
Calvin believed that the ministers of the Reformed Church could arrive at doctrinal certainty, that their doctrine could be expressed in a confession of faith, and that Christian laity should be compelled to accept that doctrine on pain of indictment for blasphemy or heresy. Calvin made no allowances for denominationalism or theological diversity. He considered the Church to be a visible society marked off by doctrine, discipline, and liturgy – outside of which there is no salvation.
Calvin believed that it was his Spirit-inspired task to express that doctrinal certainty, believed he was especially called to do so, and was enormously confident that he had gotten it right. “I have not corrupted one single text of Scripture..” It wasn’t simply a judgment that his reasoning was valid, but open to correction. His judgment was final and contradicting him personally was heresy or blasphemy.
Calvin also recognized that this attitude opened him up to charges of Papistic tyranny. He talks about that danger explicitly in his letters with Farel, and we read these accusations against him by lay people called before the consistory. “Who does Calvin think he is? The Pope?”
Calvin’s answer to this charge was that he was only doing all this “in the word,” whereas the Pope had concern only for his own ambition. Needless to say, this response struck his contemporaries as disingenuous, a case of special pleading. It strikes me that way, too.
I understand that Calvin did not have a nuanced doctrine of Calvinian infallibility. It served him polemically to leave some things ambiguous. He does discuss the possibility that the company of pastors could self-corrrect – fraternal correction among pastors. But he never really addresses how we know for sure that the pastors have gotten it right. In his mind, it was just inconceivable that the Reformed ministry could get it wrong. After all, they weren’t papal tyrants. They were Christ’s ministers doing all things “in the word.”
This lack of clarity about the Reformed Magisterium (for want of a better term) is part of what makes Calvin’s claims to authority more ambitious than the Pope. The pope claims to be the servant of tradition. He has no authority to change doctrine, but only to convey what has been handed on. This is remarkably similar to how Calvin conceived of his own role. But unlike the Pope, Calvin offers no clarity on how far that jurisdiction extends and under what circumstances. So, Pastors in Geneva claimed the right even to dictate the names Parents could give their children.
One woman called before the consistory gave voice to the frustration born of that ambiguity. She asked, “IS it necessary to believe if the ministers say there is no water in the Rhone?”
This is what I mean when I say that Calvin’s view of pastoral authority is more ambitious than the Pope’s.
-David
Hi Hugh,
The Practice of appealing to one’s Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture could only bring objective certainty if that practice were guaranteed by divine authority. Unfortunately for the advocate of sola scriptura, God has not authorized the practice of appealing to one’s Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture. The practice lacks divine sanction. Appealing to one’s spirit-led interpretation of Scripture as the final authority for Christian life is a practice that Luther advocated. But Luther does not have divine authority. Christ (who does have divine authority) never instructed us to appeal to our own spirit-led interpretation of Scripture. So, I’m afraid this is not a viable alternative to ecclesiastical authority.
-David
Thanks, David – Are we agreed that 66 books of your biblical canon are inspired by God? And are we agreed that Christians by definition *have* God the Holy Spirit living inside of them?
“God has not authorized the practice of appealing to one’s Spirit-led interpretation of Scripture”?! You are kidding, right?
Jesus said, Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. {John 16:13}
We are agreed that, “Luther does not have divine authority”! But to say that, “Christ (who does have divine authority) never instructed us to appeal to our own spirit-led interpretation of Scripture” is not quite accurate.
Did not Jesus bear witness to the internal witness of the Spirit, as well as to the inspiration and authority of his words? He said, It is the Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. {John 6:63}
In these, he appeals to a Holy-Spirit- (not “our own spirit”) led understanding or reception of the Scripture – not “interpretation,” as Peter warned us, too – no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. {2 Peter 1:20}
Hi Hugh,
I don’t recognize a 66 book biblical canon. So, no, we are not agreed. However, I am open to discussion. Can you demonstrate to me that there is such a 66 book canon and that this canon possesses divine authority as a canon? Can you demonstrate, further, that Christ intends this canon to serve as a final authority for matters of Christian faith and practice? I have never seen any evidence to support that claim. Do you know of any?
And, no, I am not kidding. I have never seen any revelation from God indicating that he intends for me to look to a settled canon of Scripture – guided by the Holy Spirit – in order to determine matters of Christian faith and practice.
The texts you cite say nothing about Scripture reading. They make no mention of a canon. Furthermore, in these last supper discourses in John, I see no indication that Christ makes this promise to me or you. He seems rather to make them to the disciples. I don’t seem to come into the conversation until John 17:20 (“I pray for those who will believe through their words – that they may be one.”)
The text presumes that those who come to Christian faith after the resurrection will come to faith because of the witness of the apostles, whose witness is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit-leading-them-into-all truth. I don’t see anything in the text about the Spirit leading me into all truth. Even less do I see any mention of a biblical canon.
So, if you know any text of Scripture or any revelation that specifies the contents of the biblical canon and indicates that canon as our rule of faith, I’d love to hear it. Otherwise, I’ll stick to my contention that God has not authorized the spirit-interpreted biblical canon as our rule of faith.
-David
Hugh,
I realize that we have just veered off topic. I’m happy to discuss issues of canon, scripture, and so forth. But let’s move those issues to the appropriate threads. Thanks!
David
Oops – sorry. Your #952 didn’t show up before I posted my #953.
Hugh
I am also a convert. My first seminary, a liberal Protestant divinity school, organized its church history survey in a very insightful way: The medieval history semester ended, not on the eve of the Reformation, but with Luther and Calvin themselves. Locating them in the context of medieval theology framed their disputes with the Church in the proper way.
This is a really interesting read, but what upsets me is your short-sightedness, and I mean that in the most loving and gentle way.
The thing that I think is most clear in this article is that you came at both Calvinism and Catholicism from totally the wrong points of view. I can identify with a lot of what you’re saying, as I was raised Presbyterian, started reading some weirder, more liberal theologians, ended up in a period of total doubt and confusion, before being brought (by the grace of God, and the nurturing of older, wiser friends) back into communion with God. For a lot of that time, I searched for God by seeking first the best way to *know* God, instead of being known by Him.
When you say, “I thought that if I could master Calvin, I would really know the faith.” – I understand. I too searched for a basis of faith in something that could not satisfy. For me, that was an existential experience of God, for you, that was the life of one very fallible man: Calvin. Don’t get me wrong, I love how God worked through Calvin to bring about Reformation to His Church. And I totally see what you’re saying; the Reformers weren’t all that great, and don’t match up to modern Evangelical standards. Why? Well, mostly because Reformers, like us, were not ‘saints’. No, far from it, they were sinners saved by grace, like you, and like me. What does this mean? Basically, Reformers screwed up (of course they did, they’re human! Look at Peter, he literally walked with Christ- the God-man – and still he doubted!) and made some really stupid decisions, which you accurately point out throughout this article, but so be it! They were men who, like us, had fallen short of the glory of God (Romans 3v.23).
My principle concern for you though is this: like me, you searched for security in knowledge. I know what that’s like, honestly, I do, I read Rob Bell, Mike McHargue, Rachel Held-Evans, and every liberal author I could get my hands on to try and validate a God who just didn’t seem to add up. They helped, or at least, I thought they did. But then my life kinda hit the rocks. In all my searching for my own God, I had stopped listening to God. Ironic, isn’t it? So when this period of suffering, shall we say, raised its head, I was in for quite a shock. The god I had started to worship became as effective as the Baals and Dagons of old.
Then I was surprised by grace. In the midst of all my heartache and (apologies for the reference) total depravity, I first saw Christ for who He was, not who I thought him to be, or more accurately, who I *wanted* him to be.
Jesus died to save sinners. We all are guilty of sin, we all deserve punishment, but God, “being rich in mercy” sent his own Son to die a sinner’s death for all of us. Jesus lived on Earth as a man, he grew up like you and me, grew in wisdom and understanding like you and me, and lived the perfectly God-glorifying life that you and I never could. In love, he carried his cross up Calvary hill and hung, “cursed” on a tree for the sins of his flock. On the cross, Christ defeated death. On the third day, Christ created life – for us, eternity spent with Him. Like Romans 6 constantly tells us, we, in Christ, are, “dead to sin, and alive in Christ.”
This means that now, our hope is not built upon knowledge or wisdom, no, it is built on, “the rock that is higher than I” (Psalm 61v.2). Like me, you searched for faith in a man, namely Calvin, and unsurprisingly, you didn’t find Christ there. Then you turned to the Early Church fathers and saints, and there you found solace and comfort, but still, I don’t believe you will find Christ. Don’t get me wrong, there is so much value in past believers and there writings. We can learn so much and can constantly examine ourselves and our churches for the errors that they saw in their selves and their churches. But it is short-sighted to look to Christ’s followers and not look to Christ himself. In Him there is, “newness of life” (Romans 6v.4) and peace that, “surpasses all understanding” and, “will guard [our] hearts and [our] minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4v.17), not in Calvin, or Augustine, or Francis, or anyone else.
Can I then urge you, as a brother in Christ, and another member of the body Christ calls his own, to not look to men for your faith. Could you instead, “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” and then afterwards, “all these things [the knowledge and assurance] will be added to you.” (Matthew 6v.33)
Yours in Christ,
Conor.
“Come, let us return to the Lord; for he has torn us, that he may heal us; he has struck us down, and he will bind us up.” Hosea 6v.1
Hi Conor,
Thanks so much for your kind thoughts and your concern. But, I wonder, how would you know from this article the extent to which I look to God for my salvation? All I recount is that Calvin laid the groundwork for me to seek God through the means established by Christ (Faith in his teaching, and the sacraments and the Church he founded). Calvin turned me away from human authority to seek God in the revelation of Christ and his body the Church. As Scripture says, “His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known.” (Ephesians 3:10)
Thank you again,
David
[…] I already knew that Calvin himself, for all his insistence on unity and authority, had been unable to deliver the goods. His own followers descended into anarchy and individualism…I realized instead that Calvin was part of the problem. He had insisted on the importance of unity and authority, but had rejected any rational or consistent basis for that authority. He knew that Scripture totally alone, Scripture interpreted by each individual conscience, was a recipe for disaster. But his own claim to authority was perfectly arbitrary. Whenever he was challenged, he simply appealed to his own conscience, or to his subjective experience, but he denied that right to Bolsec and others. As a result, Calvin became proud and censorious, brutal with his enemies, and intolerant of dissent. In all my reading of Calvin, I don’t recall him ever apologizing for a mistake or admitting an error.” – How John Calvin Made Me a Catholic […]
Dear David,
Interesting article about your quest for the “true faith” and “true church”. My quest has not ended yet, but I think this article will help.
I used to go to a pentecostal/evangelical church since my conversion to the christian faith. I also used to be anti-catholic, but since the exhausting discussions with my catholic friend about the differences between the catholic church and “my” church I changed my point of view. I found it more relaxing and better for our conversation about faith to look at “our” commonalities. I am sure that this is what God wants from us, christians: to look at the things that connect us, in particular the love of God, to realise the unification of the church.
Since my changed attitude towards other denominations in the christian world, including the catholic church, I am not anti-catholic anymore. On the contrary, I am really interested in what the “first christian church” teaches. So keep up the good work and let God do the rest.
We will see what God wants me to do. Pray for me and for the unity of the church.
In Christ,
Erik
I’m studying at the strong Calvinist seminar. Our church history and theology never failed to acknowledge the flaws in Calvin’s life, and students were intently instructed to see these flaws clearly. Understanding of these flaws does not decimate our certainty in the biblical truth, but help us to be humble and work as the faithful servant of the Word.
Since the evangelicals were not dodging the mistakes of the early reformers, but keep trusting Christ and serve the Gospel, can our Catholic brothers also be challenged to set down the dispute, let God’s word rule over everything, in unity serving the Gospel?
Dear Jacob,
Thank you for your comment. I never said that Calvin’s flaws decimate our certainty in biblical truth. Instead, studying Calvin’s sincere positions on the eucharist, baptism, church authority, and scripture showed me how differently he saw Christianity from my evangelical friends. Calvin forced me to re-examine the texts of Scripture with a more open mind. This examination led me to the Catholic faith.
I am not sure what you mean by asking whether Catholics can set down the dispute and let God’s word rule. If you mean, “Can Catholics presume the doctrine of sola scriptura?” then the answer would be, “No,” since the Bible does not teach sola scriptura.
-David
My knowledge of Calvinism is superficial. Recently confronted by a Calvinist about predestination. Do Calvinists believe that God created in order to bring glory to Himself (rather than out of generosity and love). At the same time I’ve been reading Theology for Beginners by Frank Shead. Great explanation of the Trinity. Did Calvin have a sound grasp of the inner life of the Trinity? The Spirit as Love between the Father and the son? For grace as love for us? For the idea that we can participate in the inner life of the Trinity? Double predestination seems to miss those truths.
Bojidar, I realize…some time has passed. But, for what its worth, I’d like to say that as a cradle Catholic, one of the biggest draws of the Church is its rich, long-standing intellectual traditon. I like to joke that if you love footnotes, really love them, Catholicism is the religon for you. Ooh, and bibliographies. The Church has been the home of so many great scholars, authors, philosophers, etc. There is a serious argument to be made that the university system, education as we know it, would have been impossible without the Chruch. The European intellectual life of centuries was dependent on her as an insitution. Are there emotional Catholics? Yes, of course. Just like there are emotional Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, etc. We are all humans, after all. And what makes us human and made in the image of God is, yes, our intellect. And our will. But also our capacity for love, which, at times, can move us with a little emotionalism. 1 Corinthians 13:2 “And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.” Nowhere in the Bible do I see Jesus saying “How dare you be moved by compassion? Please adopt the Vulcan discipline of non-emotion and adhere to objective facts.”
I don’t know if you are aware. There is, in the United States (with which I am most familiar) at least, a storied tradition on the part of anti-Catholics to discredit the members of the Church by calling them ‘emotional’ ‘superstitious’ ‘child-like’ ‘fearful’ ‘womanly’ ‘unintelligent’ ‘gullible’ ‘ignorant’ ‘overly sentimental’. There was a lot of anxiety around immigration from Ireland, southern, and eastern continental Europe. “They could be anarchists, foreign saboteurs, they are different than us, look at all the weird stuff they do, etc. etc.” which fed into this. I believe there may be similar legacies in the UK, but I am not sure.
I also find it interesting that you have seen converts to Protestantism find “objective principles of interpretation” and be “doctrinally motived”. My grad class right now we’re doing some comparative religion and I must admit I am totally confuzzled by Protestant theology. There is so much of it, and its all so variable. Objectivity seems to be in the wind. Right down to the wire, too. My classmate has been trying to help me understand what a synod is and why there were so many of them and I just… Hmph. Gotta keep plugging away, I guess.
(I have references I almost added to this post. If anyone wants, well, a bibliography, I can add it on. Just letting you know.)
Interesting . . . at the same time, sad.
What strikes me is, not how Protestant that experience of Christianity was, but how USA it all is. I don’t think Christians in the US – Protestant *or Catholic* – realise how alike they sound, because their religious cultures have been so completely assimilated to the US that the differences they aare conscious of seem relatively trivial. The Orthodox seem far less assimilated to the environing US culture, and that is probably a good thing. But Catholicism in the US has been so completely Americanised that, except for a few superficial details, it seems pretty much like another US, Protestant, Church.
Thank you for sharing your story. Luther and Calvin came on the scene shortly after the invention of the printing press. In terms of scholarship and research, there really was none before that. Politics seems to have decided things, and the use of force, including torture. Jesus rejected the use of force to advance the Kingdom of God.
Even after the reformers, books went out of print, were hard to obtain, so, still, scholarship and research was very limited. It is only now, with the use of the internet, that has enabled everyone access to millions of books. The level or scholarship and research is now at the highest levels ever. (although so is cheating). And so, all doctrines are in dispute. The shallow reasons given in the past, do not past muster and are proven to be false in many cases. The churches in 100 years from now, will be like nothing today. Churchianity and Christianity are not the same.
Maybe Calvin just had a taste of grace?
Jesus said , You should call no one your teacher, but that He would send The Helper ( Holy Spirit) to His sheep , and would not leave us as orphans. This is why Peter failed Jesus even though he thought he never would. He had not yet received the Holy Spirit until Pentecost. We each have a promise from Christ to give us the gift of the person of the Holy Spirit to lead us in His word , and ways. So each true believer has this . As far as the Holy Catholic Church prior to the first Pope , the Catholic Church it is known to be the church. The beginning of the now Catholic church has claimed this word ‘Catholic’ as if they are the only Catholic Church. As far as history has shown these popes have seated themselves in the seat only Christ deserves. And bowing down to this authority physically or mentally is bowing to man not Christ. They have put their own authority above the Bible ; they have added to the word through the centuries. God’s curse I believe in Revelations at the end says God will punish those severely who add or take away from God’s Holy Word.
The Word says you bow to no man, Christ alone we will bow before. Even the angels in heaven said not to bow to them.
The many people that Popes have put to death and burned at the stake are countless. Jesus said ,” This is my commandment , that you love one another”, and also in the Gospel of Matthew Jesus said , “Love your enemy.” How is having someone burned at the stake loving your enemy. Today’s popes are just a man that is allowing other people to bow down and kiss his hand ,and treat him as though he were Jesus Christ. Do you not see something wrong with this one thing! And there are many more things as well wrong with this false church. It is quickly becoming more and more to look like the woman in Revelations that rides on the beast. It seems very clear that the Catholic Church’s leadership is an apostate, even enemy to Christ’s church. Read your Bible , it’s clear what it says; even a child could see what it says with the help of the Holy Spirit. “ Bow to no man, one is your teacher, and call no one Father on earth for one is your Father , God the Father. Do not store up things on earth that moth and rust destroys, and thieves break in and steal. How much gold is in the Popes church. Make no likeness of God on earth, so how many statues does it have representing Christ( God the Son).
God is our God, not the Pope; not a man. “ For all has sinned and come short of the glory of God”. Seems very simple even to a child. I’m no theologian, thankfully I’m one of the one’s Christ thanked the Father for that He had not chosen the ones who thought themselves to be wise , and had much understanding. Just saying.. “Unless you become like little children you shall not enter the kingdom of God( God’s rule in God’s kingdom).
Hi all,
As one partial to the Reformed Baptist viewpoint, I had a few comments after reading through this discussion:
1. It’s not surprising that Calvin would differ from modern evangelicalism as many make the same error Rome does in denying monergism, predestination, and man’s total deadness in sin. As Jesus says in John 6:44, “no man can come to me unless the Father draw him”. To be fair Calvin probably held to a more “high church” view, but one can do that without accepting the RCC view of the church.
I agree that Calvin can at times come off as harsh, but there are also many times in the Institutes where he speaks about showing great “soberness” in expounding what the Scriptures teach. He writes at one point about regretting using the term “fortune” in the past rather than emphasizing God’s sovereignty, so I suppose that’s _almost_ an apology :P He certainly had flaws, but so did many great figures in the Bible such as King David. We can recognize them while still trying to extract the good points of his writings.
2. Much has said about the “private interpretation” of Scripture. The argument is that because people interpret the Bible differently, that allegedly invalidates it as the ultimate authority in doctrine. But as others have noted, the same argument can be turned back on Catholics – how do you know you’re interpreting Catholic teaching correctly? How do you know you’re understanding your catechism correctly? As James White has pointed out many times, once the magisterium speaks you still have to _interpret_ what’s been said…and different people may have different interpretations.
I’d also note the same argument can be made about the “church fathers”. Reading the above comments, Jason July argued that John Chrysostom held to a Lutheran view of Law and Gospel. Other Catholics argued from their reading that Chrysostom held to a Catholic view. The Eastern Orthodox would argue that Chrysostom represents the Eastern Orthodox view. How do you know who is right? Does the fact Chrysostom can be interpreted differently mean that we can’t know for sure what he believed/taught?
3. Relating to Ty’s point in comment #914, we may only have small fragments of certain writers especially in the very early church period. Not all writings may have survived, and who knows if more writings will be discovered with later archaeology. They found another set of Dead Sea Scroll fragments just in the past couple years. If I remember right they found a few new sermons of Augustine a while back.
Not everyone who lived back then may have even written at all. It’s much easier in our digital age for someone to leave records in the form of a blog, online writings, or videos. But there were certainly many Christians who lived and died throughout the years that we may currently know nothing about. I’m not trying to sound like a “conspiracy theorist”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we found a diversity of views among early Christians as well if we had records of everything they discussed or talked about with each other.
Just a few additional thoughts to an interesting discussion!