How Are We Saved?
Sep 13th, 2019 | By Tim A. Troutman | Category: Blog PostsThere is no question more important for the Christian than the question of how we are saved. But the Scripture answers this question in apparently various ways as does the Catholic Church from the beginning until now.
Examples of answers from Scripture include:
- St. Peter giving the explicit answer, “repent and be baptized..” (Acts 2:38)
- Jesus Himself saying that the one who “endures to the end will be saved.” (Matt 10:22)
- St. Paul saying that we are justified by “faith apart from works of the Law.” (Rom 3:28)
- St. James saying, “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” (James 2:24)
Examples from the Catholic Church include:
- St. Ignatius saying that the Eucharist is the “medicine of immortality.”1
- St. Augustine saying that God “does not without your action justify you.”2
- The Council of Trent declaring that faith is “the beginning, foundation and root of all justification.”3
During the first fifteen hundred years of Christianity the Church theologians felt no need to isolate faith as the unique cause of salvation.4 Rather Christians followed the New Testament authors and continued to speak of the means of salvation in various interchangeable ways. This cannot possibly be because “faith aloneâ was so obvious that it was implicitly understood by everyone. First, such a case cannot be made even by Scripture alone apart from the Church fathers.5 Secondly, going back as far as the first extra-biblical texts, there is a clear and unmistakable sacramental soteriology that is utterly incompatible with the doctrine of Sola Fide (faith alone).6 Hence renowned Protestant scholar Alistair McGrath writes:
The first centuries of the western theological tradition appear to be characterized by a âworks-righteousnessâ approach to justification . . . The Protestant understanding of the nature of justification thus represents a theological novum.7
Yet in spite of this variety, there was no major controversy in the Church about how to understand these apparently different methods until Martin Luther’s theory of sola fide and subsequent schism.8 So how is it that such a pivotal question, with such a diversity of potential answers, could go so long without causing a major controversy? This is the puzzle.
Reformed systematic theology has a well developed soteriological framework with which to harmonize and prioritize these various potential answers to the question. This framework is composed primarily of two things: 1. The reduction of certain answers into the category of “evidence.” (e.g. righteous works are evidence of, not part of true justification. I will return to this issue below.) 2. A distinction between “justification” and “sanctification.” But this won’t help us solve the puzzle because, like the doctrine of Sola Fide, this distinction is another ‘theological novum.’ That is to say, even if it were a licit theological move, it was not held by the Church fathers and therefore cannot explain the absence of controversy in the 1500+ years prior to its appearance.
The Causes of Salvation
The Council of Trent gives us an insight into this puzzle. When we ask, “how are we saved?” we are fundamentally asking, “what is the cause of salvation?” The bishops at the council explained justification in causal terms in chapter 7 of the 6th session. They divided the causes of salvation into the following types: final, formal, efficient, instrumental, and meritorious.
Before applying these causes to justification, let’s use an example to illustrate the meanings of each type of cause. Imagine you and your young daughter are walking in the park and you see a family having a picnic. Your daughter asks, “why is that family having a picnic?” What she is asking, can be otherwise stated as, “what is the cause of that family having a picnic?” There are many correct ways to answer her because there are many answers that are correct in different ways.
The final cause is the ultimate purpose of the effect. This is also called the “cause of causes” because all of the other causes are themselves caused by it. In the case of the picnic, we could say that the “happiness of the family” is the final cause. The ultimate reason that they went on a picnic is to increase their happiness. This in turn caused the other causes so as to bring about this particular effect.
The efficient cause is the agent who brings the effect about. In this case, the parents would be the efficient cause because they are the ones who planned and executed the picnic.
The meritorious cause would be the labor of the parents. This is the way they earned the money to pay for the picnic and carried out its execution. The children received this benefit but they did not merit it.
The instrumental cause could be the food and the blankets and baskets or perhaps those along with the car that they used to arrive at the park. The instrumental cause is that which is used by an agent to bring about an effect. For example, the carpenter, as agent, is the efficient cause of the nail being driven into the plank and the hammer is the instrumental cause.
I intentionally left out the formal cause because it would be easier to understand in a different example. Imagine the statue of David by Michaelangelo. In this case, the final cause is the enjoyment of the completed artwork, the efficient cause is Michaelangelo, the instrumental cause is the chisel he used, the meritorious cause could perhaps be the labor or money used to purchase the marble out of which it was made, the material cause would be the marble itself, and the formal cause would be the very form or image of David.9
The causes of justification are as follows:
Final: The Glory of God (this is why we are justified)
Formal: The justice of God (i.e. sanctifying grace)
Efficient: God Himself
Meritorious: Christ’s meritorious sacrifice on Calvary
Instrumental: Baptism10
Now where is faith in all of this? Isn’t faith a cause of justification? Of course. And there are many other causes such as repentance. But before discussing those questions, we should notice that the fathers of the council are dealing with justification on a broader level here. We should also notice that none of these causes are in conflict or tension with each other. So if one asks “what is the cause of salvation” and we answer “baptism,” we are correct. We could also have answered, “the glory of God” or “God is the cause,” etc. The Reformed also are well aware that to say that we are justified “by faith” is not contrary to saying that we are justified “by grace” or “by God.”
Formal, final, efficient, et al, are not only different types of causes but are also different ways of using the word “cause.” That is, “cause” is being used analogically among the different types, not univocally. Contrast this with four animals: dog, deer, bear, rabbit. These are four types of animals, but the word “animal” is being used univocally of each. But in the case of the different types of causes, we mean something different (but analogous) by each type of cause; they each are said to cause the effect in a different kind of way. This is why there is no tension in saying that God alone justifies us and grace alone justifies us. We could not say that dogs alone are animals and rabbits alone are animals; this would be a contradiction. Hence, as Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI once noted, the term “faith alone” can also be correct so long as it is understood to be a living faith (formed by love) and it is not said to the exclusion of other causes such as grace or repentance.
Faith & Other Causes
Now among the causes, some of them can be broken down into further causes. In the case of the statue of David, we could give additional causes for the chisel. In the case of the picnic, we could explain the instruments of the picnic by further causal explanations. For example, the parents needed to go to the grocery store to buy the food, etc. Likewise, we could easily say of baptism, the instrumental cause of justification, that faith is its “beginning, foundation and root” as it is necessarily the case that one first has faith in Christ before baptism can achieve its ultimate effect of conferring sanctifying grace.11 Repentance is also a necessary cause12 as is love for God as no man attains salvation without repentance nor is he justified who does not love God. It should be apparent already that we can continue on with other causes of varying types in this order: forgiveness, renewal, penance, etc. Again, none of these are in conflict with each other.
The point to stress here is that this division of justification according to causal principles makes it much easier to see why the New Testament authors, the early Church fathers, the ecumenical councils, and Catholics to this day, readily answer the question of “the cause of salvation” in various ways. The answers are neither imprecise nor in tension with one another; they are all correct.
Yet faith has a certain primacy among causal explanation as is clear from Scripture, the Church fathers, and the Council of Trent. Martin Luther was correct to identify this. But to what is this primacy owing? Its order in time? It is true that one needs to have faith before he can have works of charity. But it is also true that one needs to physically hear the name “Jesus” before one can believe in Him. If we give faith primacy on these logically temporal grounds, then we would need to give the mere hearing of the name of Jesus primacy over faith since it is logically prior and necessary. Yes, without faith it is impossible to please God; but without hearing the gospel it is impossible to have faith. Shall we then say that the mere hearing is the sole cause of justification to the exclusion of other causes? If we are to isolate faith as a cause in exclusion to other known causes, we would need strong justification. We find it neither in reason, Tradition, the Magisterium, nor Scripture. Therefore it must be rejected.
In the case of the picnic example above, it would be absurd to say that the picnic was caused by the presence of the food and blanket to the exclusion of the action of the parents or to the purpose of increasing the happiness of the family, etc. It would be similarly impossible to claim that the statue of David exists because of Michaelangelo to the exclusion of the marble out of which it is made or the image it bears. Likewise it was Martin Luther’s error to hold faith as a cause of salvation in exclusion to other causes such as the sacraments (primarily baptism but also Holy Communion, penance, and last rites), repentance, works of charity, etc. Nor can one say, “we don’t hold faith as the cause of justification to the exclusion of those” because if that were the case, then he affirms the Catholic doctrine of justification and has insufficient reason to remain in schism.
Finally, to refute the Reformed classification of certain causes as mere evidence, we need to make a distinction between what would count as a cause of something and what would count only as evidence of a prior, truer cause. This is not as easy to do as it might sound. Take our picnic example again. If we saw that the family was happy and enjoying the picnic, could we say that was merely an effect, or an evidence of some prior cause? We have said already, in fact, the happiness of the family was not only a cause but was the ultimate cause (the final cause). Likewise, God is not glorified because we are saved; rather, we are saved in order that God might be glorified. So are the Reformed justified in relegating holy works of charity to the category of “evidence” rather than “cause” of justification? It should already be obvious that the answer is, at best, “probably not.” As we will see in upcoming posts, the Church fathers regularly counted works of penance and almsgiving (for example) in the category of “cause” rather than “evidence.”
Conclusion
I have not disproved Sola Fide here. In spite of all the above, it might be true. But if it is true, it must be, as Luther and the Reformers believed, the absolute sine qua non of the Christian gospel. This thought is quite disturbing as, per above, it implies that the entire Church was ignorant of the very gospel core for 1,500 years, and the majority of those calling themselves Christians until this day remain in such darkness.13 It stretches credulity too much for me. On the other hand, the Catholic Church has an unbroken tradition of how to answer the question, “How are we saved?” This Tradition reaches all the way back to the apostolic Church fathers, and is the most robust and satisfying synthesis of the relevant Biblical passages. Therefore it is many times more likely to be correct than Martin Luther’s “theological novum.”
- St. Ignatius Letter to the Ephesians, 20. Here he is speaking of “immortality” as shorthand for eternal life i.e. the salvation that Christ offers. [↩]
- St. Augustine Serm. clxix, c. xi, n.13, also cf. Mcgrath re: infusion, “In Augustine’s view, God bestows justifying righteousness upon the sinner in such a way that it becomes part of his or her person.” (1993) Reformation Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [↩]
- Trent, l.c., cap.viii [↩]
- The term “faith alone” does appear sparingly. I intend to address this in a subsequent post. [↩]
- See “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?” by Dr. Bryan Cross. [↩]
- See “Tradition I and Sola Fide” by Dr. David Anders and also “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration” by Dr. Bryan Cross [↩]
- McGrath, Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 34,215 [↩]
- One possible exception being the heretical teachings of Pelagius that man could merit salvation without God’s grace. [↩]
- Now this formal cause has two different nuanced modes of being. 1. As exemplar cause (this pre-exists in the mind of Michaelangelo as the blueprint exists in the mind of the architect before he builds the house) and 2. As particular, i.e. the form in the actual statue. [↩]
- The council fathers at Trent did not specify a material cause for justification but I would take it to be man himself since marble is the material cause of David because it is that which receives the form (of David). The form of justification being God’s own justice, what else but man could be the matter that receives it? [↩]
- St. Thomas Aquinas Summa Theologiae 3.68.8 [↩]
- Luke 18:9-14 [↩]
- cf. “Did the Fathers Know the Gospel?” by Dr. Bryan Cross [↩]
This is a good explanation and outline of salvation and justification. I find it interesting that the Reformed tradition (as far as I have been able to tell) does not typically subscribe to the idea of a meritorious cause of justification. I assume this is probably because they believe Our Lord was punished for our sins in our place as if He was the committer of the sins. Obviously, those of the Reformed tradition point out, He didn’t deserve or merit this punishment of the Father’s wrath and therefore, we can’t merit the imputation of Christ’s perfect law-keeping in our place, and nothing essentially changes in us at the moment of justification.
Tim,
It seems that Catholics continue to struggle with a response that adequately answers the question âHow are you saved?â Because whatever response the Catholic gives appears to exclude a necessary component, e.g., â…by repenting and being baptizedâ. Ok, whereâs faith? So letâs change the answer to âby believing in Christ, repenting and being baptized.â Ok, whereâs love? Or obedience? Etc.
The various Protestant denominations have reduced their response to a formula of some sort, because theyâve reduced salvation to essentially Sola Fide. The overwhelming number of Catholics stammer and stutter to articulate a solid response.
Can you provide a response to that vital question of how you are saved?
Yes I can. See this article: https://www.calledtocommunion.com/2019/09/how-are-we-saved/
[…] are we to sort out this kind of confusion? In my previous post, I explained the causes of salvation as taught by the Council of Trent and how they are not in conflict with each other. I highly recommend reading that article before […]
Thanks Tim. You confirmed what I wrote above. There is no coherent Catholic response to the question of âhow are you saved?â.
If someone genuinely poses this question to you, would you really point them to an article that doesnât pointedly answer the question?
If the answer was clear from your article, I would not have asked.
Joe, you said “there is no coherent Catholic response” – but in the article I gave several coherent responses and showed why they are coherent. All of them were Catholic responses. Therefore, being Catholic & coherent, your statement is disproved.
If you think that any of the answers were incoherent, you could show them to be incoherent. But even if you were able to do that, it wouldn’t prove your claim “there is no coherent Catholic response”. It would only prove that I personally had not yet given a coherent answer. It might be the case that I was able to give a coherent answer but hadn’t yet, or it might still be the case that another Catholic could.
You said: “If someone genuinely poses this question to you, would you really point them to an article that doesnât pointedly answer the question?” It depends on who was asking the question and why. If it was a situation where someone did not know how to be saved from their sins, I would likely answer them directly myself using language I thought to be appropriate to their level of understanding and competence. But that is not a similar scenario to this one. You asked a question that was directly answered by the post on which you were commenting, which led me to believe that you either hadn’t read it or hadn’t understood it. My answers could be wrong, but I did answer the question you asked in the article itself. If you find any of them to be wrong, again, simply show which ones were wrong and why.
Finally, you seem to change the criteria, “If the answer was clear from your article”… ‘Clear’ and ‘coherent’ are not synonomous. It might be the case that I gave a perfectly correct and coherent answer, but that it was not clear because of a defect in my writing ability. Judging from other feedback I received regarding this article, that does not appear to me to be the case. Still, if there is anything in the article you find unclear, please let me know and I will clarify it.
Tim,
First, I am not looking to argue or debate. But I am still frustratingly searching for an answer.
I saw the title of the article âHow are we savedâ and believed that I can find the answer within it. I read it and walked away with a partial answer, i.e., the Scriptures present various, interchangeable but non-contradictory explanations of how salvation is achieved; the Catholic church following, expresses these explanations in its soteriology. Is that an accurate (albeit, far too succinct) description?
You also present âcausesâ as synonymous with the âhowsâ and go on to list various causes, e.g., the Glory of God, baptism, etc. When I read those, I see things such as âthe glory of Godâ as a âwhyâ but only when I get to baptism, I see âhowâ. Does that make any sense?
It seems that Catholics and non-Catholics are speaking different languages. I ask a question, expecting a certain kind of response and you respond saying you have already answered it. And I think the problem is that I do not understand âyour languageâ.
Letâs try it this way. Hereâs a Catholic response I recently received to the question of âHow are we saved?â
This response was trying to bridge the little language barrier. But I do not know if itâs correct and if it represents authentic Catholic soteriology.
And, btw, I am sorry for coming across acerbic or confrontational.
Joe, thank you that helps me understand where you are coming from better. First, yes the answer that your interlocutor gave you is consistent with Catholic teaching. I can understand that the language I’m using is not easily accessible and can seem strange especially if one does not have a background with Aristotlean-Thomistic metaphysics (and most people don’t these days. Even very highly trained philosohers often do not because they are trained in a different school of philosophy that has different terminology).
I think it’s important to not put artificial limitations on what would qualify as a good answer to the question, especially if by “good answer” we mean something arbitrarily succinct. The reason that the answer (at least can be) very complicated is because this is a very complicated subject. Not in the sense that we have no way to answer it succinctly at all. For example, one can say “we are saved by God’s grace alone” and that is a succinct and thoroughly correct answer. The answer your interlocutor gave above was a little less succinct but also a good one. This post was intended to explain in more detail why it is the case that one can give these multiple answers and if one wants to truly understand the entire doctrine, there is much that can be said in response.
But this kind of extrapolation is not unique to Catholics (although Catholics may do it more than some others). A non-denominational evangelical church might refuse to say anything more about the subject than “by grace alone through faith alone” or something like that. But they are leaving out “by Christ alone” if they limit it to the previous phrase. They are also leaving out “living faith” or the specification that faith must be formed by love. They make no mention of repentance, etc. But presumably they would include those things and some others if pressed. The Reformed confessoins tend to have larger explanations. The Westminster Confession of faith answers the question at some length and they also produced a catechism that has additional questions & answers related to the subject. Subsequently, as I’m sure you know, many thousands of books have been written on the subject. And I would guess that the majority of those were written from a Protestant perspective. This also indicates that the question needs to be treated at some length because any sufficiently succinct answer, even if correct, will be missing some imporant truths.
If we independently asked several different quantum physicists about how quantum physics work, even suppose that we just asked them to explain the basics to us, we would likely get similar but varying answers. And no matter what answer any of them gave, it would be insufficient, even if it were completely correct. But the justification of man, is actually a much deeper, profound, and transcendant subject than quantum physics. Hence St. Augustine writes that the justification of the wicked is “a greater work than the creation of heaven and earth,” because “heaven and earth will pass away but the salvation and justification of the elect . . . will not pass away.” So given that succinct explanations of quantum mechanics will likely be insufficient, we should not be surprised that a similar case obtains when talking about justification, which is something greater than the entire universe of which quantum mechanics is a mere feature.
I hope this is helpful but I am certainly willing to try and answer any question if I’m still missing the mark here. Am I understanding your concern correctly?
Tim,
You hit the nail on the head with your comment about placing artificial limitations on a response to a complex subject. This is what I am accustomed to doing with several doctrines, in particular, salvation. Here are 2 passages I go to (in addition to the famous Jn 3:16) as my so-called âtrumpâ verses:
My struggle currently, is how to synthesize ALL of the scriptural data and answer the salvation question, without using specific passages to trump others, such as the necessity of baptism, obedience, charity, etc. And Iâm still working through this and thatâs why your article caught my eye. I guess Iâm in search of the most thorough â yet succinct â answer to the most important question.
[…] This post will answer the question, âDid St. John Chrysostom believe in justification by faith alone?â As in the previous post answering the same question of St. Ambrose, the answer will be in the negative. Before reading either this or that previous post, the reader should be familiar with the points I made in this post: How Are We Saved. […]
Here is a good post I found on this topic today: https://chnetwork.org/2010/03/16/salvation-from-the-perspective-of-the-early-church-fathers/ This post focuses more on the writings of the early Church fathers and examines the different, but harmonious, ways in which they spoke about salvation.
Tim–
I am still unsure whether Trent definitively rejected sola fide or merely misunderstood it.
I can read through the “five causes of Justification” from the seventh chapter of the sixth session of the Council and avow every single solitary word.
The Reformed are wont to say that our justification is by grace alone (efficient cause) through faith alone (instrumental cause) on account of Christ alone (meritorious cause) to the glory of God alone (final cause).
Yes, Trent gives the Instrumental cause as “the sacrament of faith” (meaning baptism) rather than faith itself, but the principal difference between us lies with the formal cause: the Justice of God. Are we declared righteous, made righteous, or a combination of the two? Trent states that it’s a combination of the two whereas Protestantism, wishing not to taint the efficient cause, says that, as far as justification is concerned, the declaration is sufficient. Mind you, we still necessarily progress in our own personal inherent righteousness. It’s just not categorized as a cause.
You, like most Catholics, are dead set against sola fide. I’ve never understood why. It seems like a strange thing to fight against. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who is at work within you both to will and to do.” What exactly, within the process of our salvation, are you convinced that God himself does not will or do?
Hi Hans,
I hope I’m not derailing the discussion between you and Tim, but I wanted to answer your last question. It reveals a very important difference between Protestant and Catholic reasoning. You asked,
The normal Protestant reasoning, the one you appear to be following in your final paragraph, goes like this: the Catholic Church rejects salvation by faith alone, and includes human works as being necessary for salvation. Since she includes human works, she must believe that God’s works are not enough to save us. Catholics, then, must think that there are things “within the process of our salvation” that “God himself does not will or do,” to use your words. Rather, Catholics must believe that we ourselves, instead of God, are to accomplish those things in order to be saved. Is this a fair summary of your thinking?
While that’s Protestant reasoning, it’s not Catholic reasoning. Catholics reason from the reality â the utterly transformative reality â of grace. St. Paul asserts that the reality of grace is one in which the Christian can say, “It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me” [Ga.2:20]. A Christian is someone who has been so completely changed that Scripture calls him a “new creation,” someone entirely re-patterned, inside and out, after the life of God.
Thus, in Catholic reasoning, the good works of a Christian are God’s works. They are the works of someone who has been newly created into the reality of grace, meaning that his good works are no longer his works, for his life is no longer his life. Rather, his good works are Christ’s works through him, for it is no longer he who lives, but Christ who lives in him. This includes our freely-willed cooperation with grace, a cooperation that is itself a work of Christ accomplished within us.
So, in Catholic reasoning, the inclusion of a Christian’s good works as a necessity for salvation isn’t a matter of God Himself not “willing” or “doing” something. On the contrary, it’s a matter of God willing and doing everything â every salvifically necessary good work that we ourselves fully and freely accomplish is at the same time 100% God accomplishing that work through us. To live in such a manner, being fully alive with a life that is fully Christ’s, is precisely what salvation is, in Catholic teaching.
That is why the answer to your question is “nothing.” There is nothing that God doesn’t will or do for our salvation. But in Catholic thinking, that isn’t in conflict either with the Christian’s responsibility to undertake a holy life or with that holy life being necessary for salvation. Far from it: the good works and holy lives of Christians are the greatest of all God’s works.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Jeremy–
Thank you, your kind does exist!! My response was intended to provoke just such a response…if it were out there somewhere (which I have always suspected it was).
Your response may well be Catholic, officially Catholic even, in some ultimate, idealistic sense. What it decidedly is not, is commonly Catholic.
I believe it may well be possible to demonstrate that your view is the view of St. Thomas and St. Augustine. But in my experience anyway, it is not the view of the huge majority of modern Catholics.
Fr. Robert Barron, for example, goes so far as to decry the notion of Sola Gratia, arguing instead for the doctrine of Prima Gratia: much of our salvation is willed and done by God himself. Much of it is accomplished by grace. But certainly not all.
I have often asked Individual Catholics the question: “Is your cooperation with cooperative grace also of grace? Quite honestly, most of them hem and haw and cannot articulate a definitive answer. It’s like they intuit that it should be but question how it can be, given the Church’s frequent opposition to Sola Fide.
The position you propounded to me, by the way, is unmistakably Sola Fide. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. That’s ok. The Catholics in “Evangelicals and Catholics Together,” men like Avery Cardinal Dulles, Richard John Neuhaus, Peter Kreeft, and Robert George, willingly embraced the term. Heck, Benedict XVI, approvingly citing Martin Luther, embraced the term. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (an ecumenical document hammered out between Catholics and Lutherans) embraced the term. Maybe it’s NOT as contentious and intractable an issue as we’ve been led to believe!!
Hi Hans,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is the most common summary of Catholic teaching in the world. If you want to know what the Church teaches about anything, the catechism is a great place to start. Here’s what it says about cooperating with grace in section 2001, quoting from two of St. Augustine’s works:
What I wrote in my comment is in fact so “commonly Catholic” that it’s clearly laid out in the most common and easily accessible summary of Catholic teaching in the world.
You wrote,
You haven’t spoken with “the huge majority of modern Catholics.” Neither have I. This is just a grandiose red herring.
It may be that the Catholics you’ve spoken to don’t know their faith as well as they ought. But that too is a red herring. If you wish to know what their faith teaches about cooperating with grace, you need look no further than their catechism.
About Bishop Barron, you wrote,
You’ve provided no evidence that Bishop Barron has taught contrary to what the Church teaches regarding cooperation with grace.
On that note, when I was becoming Catholic, my understanding of the faith wasn’t shaped by obscure and eccentric Catholic teachers. It was shaped by teachers like Bishop Barron, Peter Kreeft, Jimmy Akin and the guys at Catholic Answers, Scott Hahn, and, of course, the authors at this website, among others. The comment that I wrote comes from what these teachers taught, and in my nearly three years of being Catholic I’ve never encountered any different teaching from any other teacher.
You wrote,
I’m thankful that there’s no conflict between Catholic teaching and your understanding of sola fide. For most Protestants, that’s not the case, and in fact, the perceived conflict forms one of the great hurdles to reconciliation between Catholics and Protestants. But I think that so much of the conflict is merely a dispute about words. There’s very little actual difference between the substance of what the Catholic Church teaches about grace, faith, and works, and the substance of what Protestants believe. It hasn’t been unusual for me to explain the Catholic position on these matters to a Protestant, and for them to respond, “But that’s what I already believe!”
You wrote,
I agree wholeheartedly, and pray that yours would become a common conviction.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Jeremy–
I agree with you that the CCC is the first place to go, but even it is not definitive, as is evidenced by Francis’ change in the wording concerning capital punishment. And often the rhetoric is ambiguous enough to be easily capable of more than one interpretation.
Augustine says many things that are compatible with Sola Fide. For example, concerning merit, he states that “God crowns his own gifts.” This implies there is no collaboration on our part that would justify inherent rewards. And yet, the Bishop of Hippo was handicapped by the Latin mistranslation of “dikaioo,” so it isn’t surprising when he’s inconsistent.
You quote him as writing:
“Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us.”
But that’s like saying that God works WITH us to effect our salvation rather than WITHIN us. That’s NOT what Philippians 2:12-13 clearly teaches! (And it’s not what you said you agreed with.) Is cooperation gracious or isn’t it?
Here’s a similar quote but from monergism.com:
“Indeed, we believe and work, but we do so because God works in us to do according to his good pleasure…works which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.”
The NT frequently states that we collabor together IN Christ Jesus but never, ever that we collabor WITH Christ Jesus.
I have spoken with and read hundreds of Catholics, and so far, 99% of them directly proclaim (or at least give caveats as to why) salvation is not totally gracious. Most of them, in fact, do not mince words. They are offended by the notion that God wills and does everything to effect our salvation.
Because of the examples you give, I am likewise unsure whether you yourself believe any differently.
By and large, this website attacks Sola Fide with an incredible ferocity. It is true that upon occasion they will let slip with something that sounds strikingly similar to JBFA. One article, for example, gives the analogy of a man rolling a huge boulder up a hill. He allows a child to reach out his little mitt and “assist” in the task. They actually state that the kid’s efforts add nothing to the endeavor’s success. If it adds nothing, then that’s monergism. I mean, THAT’S WHAT IT IS!!! Not that we do no work. Not that we don’t cooperate with grace. But that our efforts accomplish nothing!
But they termed it synergism due to the boy’s subjective “experience” of willingly cooperating with the divine.
Frankly, I do not know whether the differences between us are substantial or merely perceived. Indeed, I’m not at all sure that official Catholic dogma is either clear enough or consistent enough to ever know.
Jeremy–
I went back to the archives of Called to Communion to demonstrate to you that this site, at least, does not agree with you that our cooperation with grace is also of grace.
What I found, ironically enough, was an exchange between you yourself and Bryan Cross.
You mentioned an ongoing dialogue you were having with Guy Waters at RTS, in which you shared the following:
“The problem though, according to Dr. Waters, is that the work of Christ is not the sole instrument of final justification for Catholics.”
Dr. Cross responded:
“Why exactly is that a problem? Why should grace destroy nature, and nullify the possibility of merit? See [this comment] in the previous thread, in which I showed that for St. Augustine and St. Thomas, the life lived in grace is a life in which God (not man!) is the co-operator.”
If one does indeed proceed to this link, a passage from Augustine’s “On Grace and Free Will” includes this insight:
“Forasmuch as in beginning He works IN US, that we may have the will, and in perfecting, He works WITH US when we have the will.”
At any rate, it is clear that Dr. Cross does not agree that our cooperation should be credited to God! Quite the opposite. And he may be correct concerning Augustine overall…even though other passages within “On Grace and Free Will” conflict with this one.
So, mon frere, do you still agree with me, or are you loyal to Called to Communion’s take on the matter?
Oh, and if you do still agree with me that there is NOTHING in salvation that God himself doesn’t both will and do…are you willing to oppose your fellow Catholics and quit vilifying JBFA?
Jeremy–
I apologize. I just went through fairly major surgery a little over a week ago and am pretty exhausted. The exchange above is actually between Jeremy TATE and Dr. Cross. Sorry about that!
Hello Hans (re: #17)
Nothing I said entails that our cooperation should not be credited to God. I firmly believe that our cooperation should be credited to God. See my post titled “Did the Council of Trent Contradict the Second Council of Orange?”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hi Hans,
This is irrelevant. I quoted the catechism to demonstrate that nothing in comment #13 was out of line with how the Catholic faith is commonly understood and taught. You have yet to produce any evidence otherwise.
According to you, St. Augustine is “inconsistent” in the quotes provided by the catechism:
I’m not sure where you are seeing a problem here. Of course “God works with us to effect our salvation.” That’s precisely what we are cooperating with when we cooperate with grace. What else does cooperating with grace mean if not cooperating with God’s assistance?
As for whether that cooperation itself is gracious, I’ve already given you my answer. You have St. Augustine’s answer, too, in my comment #15, so you know full well that he does not dispute Philippians 2:12-13.
You wrote,
Except you haven’t shown a single point of inconsistency. On the contrary, in two thousand years, the Catholic Church has never wavered in her teaching about grace. She’s been no more inconsistent than St. Paul was inconsistent when he referred to himself as “Paul” at the beginning of Galatians, while later asserting, “It is no longer I who live but Christ who lives in me.” The whole mystery of grace, and of our participation in and with it, and the difficulty of expressing that reality in words, is bound up in those words of St. Paul.
In fact, your comments thus far have been a prime example of that difficulty. You spoke of Catholics with whom you’ve discussed this matter “hemming and hawing,” and yet you yourself appear to be hemming and hawing.
For example, you wrote,
In comment #13, I wrote that we freely work together with God for our salvation, claiming that “every salvifically necessary good work … we ourselves fully and freely accomplish.” You declared this to be “unmistakably Sola Fide. No ands ifs or buts about it.”
But now, on the basis of your interpretation of Scripture, you appear to be rejecting that we freely work together with God for our salvation.
So, do we or do we not work together (cooperate, collaborate, etc.) with God for our salvation?
Later, you wrote,
The word “monergism” means something like “one worker,” or “one power,” the emphasis being, of course, on “one.” If what you mean by that is that a Christian’s faith, hope, love, and good works are accomplished by only one worker, or one power, then that’s not what you agreed with in my comment #13. In my comment, I repeatedly stressed that human beings fully and freely cooperate with God’s grace. That is, man is also a worker, and his power directly contributes to his salvation: “every salvifically necessary good work that we ourselves fully and freely accomplish.”
So again, is God the only one who works for our salvation, or does man also work?
See how easy it is to accuse others of inconsistency in these discussions?
You wrote,
If by “totally gracious” you mean “solely gracious,” then of course they reject it. So do I, as I clearly did in comment #13, the comment you unequivocally embraced. God is not the sole worker, nor is His grace the sole power. Again, man fully and freely participates.
The fact that this participation is itself a gift of grace doesn’t mean it isn’t a real participation. It doesn’t mean that God “possesses” us, or in some way co-opts anything that is proper to our nature. He doesn’t take over, push aside, or diminish our intellect, our will, our imagination, or anything else. No, it really is us, using our own innate powers, working with God’s power. The fact that this “working together” itself is something God accomplishes through us doesn’t diminish its reality in any way. God’s willing and doing are not on the same metaphysical level as man’s willing and doing, any more than Frodo’s willing and doing are on the same metaphysical level as Tolkien’s.
In Catholic teaching, excluding God from man’s salvation, either whole or in part, is an error. That’s why the answer to the question you put to Tim is “nothing.” But so too is excluding man from man’s salvation. Monergism is as much an error as Pelagianism and Semipelagianism are, only in the opposite direction.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Dr. Cross–
Thanks so much for the reply. I really appreciate it.
Perhaps I am still in a post-operative fog, but I saw no direct corroboration of our “cooperation being credited to God” in the post to which you linked me. The only thing that seemed to be there was an indirect attribution …in that God is the source of our new nature, and it is our new nature which cooperates with cooperative actual grace. But couldn’t Pelagius say the same thing? Our natural flesh was created by God, and thus any good works we do in the flesh are predicated on some sort of “creative” grace. We could (and should) then credit them to God.
Jeremy–
Being in a certain amount of discomfort, I may have to answer you piecemeal. I’ll begin from the bottom and move upward.
The answer to Tim’s question CANNOT be “nothing” unless–at least in some sense–man is excluded from effecting his own salvation. So you’ve either excluded us (and become a heretic in your own eyes) or your answer is not “nothing.” You cannot have your cake and eat it, too!
The problem, of course, is mostly paradigmatic. The Reformed separate justification and sanctification, as well as the spiritual planes on which God and Man do their work. We would never say that our regenerate selves do not work heartily unto the Lord, or that we do not freely cooperate with his grace. Monergism doesn’t mean that between the divine and the human, only one works. We Reformed work like mad; in fact, as hard as we possibly can. Perseverance is maintained through blood, sweat, and tears, through sacrifice and suffering…NOT though some cozy resting on Christ’s laurels, antinomianly sipping Mai Tais on the beach!
But we do not place our credit in God’s column. If you can say that God works in and through us to effect our salvation–that there is NOTHING that he himself does not will and do–then, as far as I’m concerned you are a monergist. Monergism does not mean that there is no place for Man in his own salvation. It means that Man does not do God’s work for him…and doesn’t cooperate in God’s own work. That’s what we mean when we say that one shouldn’t steal God’s glory. Don’t attribute to yourself something already accomplished by God…or in the process of being accomplished by God. We collaborate with God in sanctification. We do not collaborate with him in justification. Nor should we desire to.
Moving up to your next to last paragraph, I see where you say the exact same thing. God and Man are on distinct metaphysical levels. (So…you ARE a monergist, after all!!!)
Up one more. If God is indeed on his own metaphysical level, then ON THAT LEVEL he is the sole worker. The sole power. And with this view of things, salvation becomes “totally” gracious.
Hello Hans (re: #21),
Probably not the post-op fog; probably just me not being careful and clear. I meant to point you to that post to show that I affirm Canons 5, 6, and 8 (indeed them all) of Second Orange. And these canons were written specifically to address semiPelagianism. We cannot move toward God unless He first moves us. Actual grace always precedes any human response. When we, moved first by God’s grace, respond with assent to God’s word and will, then as St. Augustine points out, God’s operative grace becomes cooperative grace. As I wrote in 2009:
That’s discussed a bit more in 2011 in “Lawrence Feingold on Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace.” I hope that clarifies a bit, and that you recover quickly from your surgery!
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Dr. Cross–
Thank you. I’ll read the Feingold and get back to you if I have questions.
Just one in the meantime:
If God moves us without us, he’s doing all the moving. If God moves us with us, it remains ambiguous. Is he still doing all the moving, but with our involvement as a secondary cause? Or is God assisting us every step of the way as we ourselves get ourselves to where we need to be?
Jeremy–
I’ll try to answer a little bit more.
The opposite of Pelagianism, where Man is autonomous and can thwart the will of God…is hyper-Calvinism, where Man lacks all autonomy because strings sustain and move his puppet body.
Both Thomism and Calvinism are compatibilistic. If you make yourself a chart, we’re actually pretty close to one another. God’s sovereignty and Man’s free will are held in tension.
You’re right. I really shouldn’t speak of inconsistency. From my vantage point, it often sounds like you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. But so much of that is paradigm. I’ll quit.
You wrote:
“I repeatedly stressed that human beings fully and freely cooperate with Godâs grace. That is, man is also a worker, and his power directly contributes to his salvation: ‘every salvifically necessary good work that we ourselves fully and freely accomplish.'”
But you see, Jeremy, THAT’S my point! Monergists can repeat every word you just said. I cannot know just by hearing these sentiments that you are synergistic in any way.
Both Catholics and the Reformed quote Philippians 2:12-13 as if it were unmistakably demonstrative of their paradigm. I believe the key word to be “FOR.”
“Work out our own salvation in fear and trembling, FOR it is God who is at work within you both to will and to do.”
There are clearly two parties working. But just as clearly, one party’s work is subsumed under the other. There is no hint of cooperation or collaboration.
Why would that be if it is paramount for talk of salvation to exude synergism? I simply cannot imagine a reason….
Gravatar – it seems to me you are trying to put God and man on the same level and then wanting to decide between them. But God is the source – and yet He creates man truly free. I think that if you try to assume that God’s being the source means that man’s freedom is illusory, you could end up saying the same about all non-God existence: it is only maya – illusion. That way lies pantheism.
Philippians 2:12-13 says (1) man’s efforts are real and necessary, and (2) God’s sovereignty is absolutely real and necessary. There only seems to be a problem if we think of God and man against some common background.
I don’t know if this makes sense – it was something that I came to over thirty years ago, when I still had ten years to go before I ceased to be Reformed and was received into the Catholic Church.
JJ–
What you’re describing is compatibilism, and (as I already said above) Thomism and Calvinism are in the same boat on this one. Sounds like you converted under false pretenses.
You wouldn’t be the first. Not by a long shot!
Hans (re: #24)
The dilemma you offer is, from the perspective of Catholic theology, a false dilemma, because it presupposes a mistaken philosophy of causality. See “Monocausalism, Salvation, and Reconciliation,” (in which I engage B.B. Warfield on this point), and see also “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory” in which I engage Michael Horton on how this applies to glory.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hans Svineklev – not sure how you know why I converted – certainly had nothing to do with my view on the matter I discussed above. I converted because I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is Jesus’s sacramental presence in the world, and that I had to be in it to be saved. Here is a bit of a story about how I converted.
PS – compatibilism is about free will and determinism. I do not believe that the sovereignty of God has anything to do with determinism. God’s will is absolutely free.
Dr. Cross–
Look, I’m not a philosophy buff, so I may not be completely comprehending your points in these articles. But I have the following observations:
Every Reformed theologian I can find denies occasionalism and ascribes to mankind causal agency. So you appear to be barking up the wrong tree.
If they are monocausal, they are monocausal only concerning the declarative and regenerative aspects of justification. As far as I can tell, this type of monocausalism would apply to Catholicism, as well, at least initially.
Catholicism does allow one to reject the gift anywhere along the way, so that’s an added agency. I have to admit I don’t understand that as some sort of a benefit. Nor do I see it as particularly rational. It anthropomorphizes God as a bad salesman or as bad shepherd. Does a music historian have to be browbeaten or manipulated to agree that Beethoven was no bum? On what basis would a regenerate person reject God? On what basis would the Shepherd’s flock stop listening to His voice?
Of course, prevenient grace posits some sort of neutral standing before God, after the presentation of the Gospel, wherein one is permitted to decide for oneself. That’s really convoluted! How small of a percentage of the glory of God would need to be revealed to allow one to stand there contemplating? An infinitesimal amount, for sure.
When it comes to stealing glory, there are different levels of glory. There’s nothing wrong with Saints being venerated for what they were able to accomplish in the flesh. But we are not to ascribe to them (nor to ourselves) that which was accomplished by God. To do so robs him of his glory. It has nothing to do with God’s being a glory hog or with God’s being jealous of the spotlight falling on his creatures. Good grief! It’s HIS glory! We have no legitimate claims to it. Justification is by faith and not by works because it actually is effected by God and not by us. It’s nothing more than APPROPRIATE humility.
We’re given all kinds of agency in the process of sanctification.
(Some people don’t like all caps. I do it once in a while simply because I don’t know how to work italics. I’m sorry in advance if it bothers you.)
Mr. Jensen–
I think I misread your last line. You came to this insight and then remained Reformed for ten more years. I thought you had said you converted soon after being convinced by of the truth of this concept.
However, since this concept is completely Reformed in orientation, all you did was become more fully Reformed for ten years!
Compatibilism states that God’s full sovereignty and man’s genuinely free will…are compatible with one another.
God is totally free in that he can do anything he pleases and that no one and nothing can stand in his way. He is, however, bound by his character.
Hi Hans,
I think I’m winding down here. I can’t really make heads or tails of our conversation, and now we are going in circles.
You wrote (#22),
Except the position I’ve been at pains to explain, and the one you’ve apparently been at pains to claim as your own, is that we can in fact “have our cake and eat it, too.”
According to Catholic teaching, we can have our cake: man does indeed “effect” his own salvation. He does so by participating, with the full and free use of all his innate powers, with grace. He cannot be saved without that participation â without responding favourably to the call of the gospel, for example. His salvation is directly dependent upon his efforts.
And we can eat it, too: there is, at the same time, nothing that God Himself does not will or do for man’s salvation, because even man’s salvation-effecting participation with grace is itself a gift of God’s grace.
Whether you agree with this or not is irrelevant, for it isn’t my purpose to convince you of Catholic teaching. My purpose is to show you why, according to Catholic teaching, the answer to your question is “nothing.”
That being said, if Catholic teaching does not differ substantially from what you think monergism and sola fide entail, then I’m thankful. But what that means, seeing as both monergism and sola fide were articulated in response to Catholic teaching, is that a good chunk of the protest in your Protestantism, or the reform in your Reformed, is emptied of its rhetorical force.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Hans (re: #31)
I only piped in to reply to your claim in #17 that I do not agree that our cooperation should be credited to God. But I see that you’re making many additional claims now. Let me respond briefly to a few.
I agree that Reformed theologians reject occasionalism. My argument does not depend upon the premise that Reformed theologians embrace occasionalism.
I agree.
You would need an argument to show it to be not “rational.” The claim that it “anthropomorphizes God” presupposes the very point in question, i.e. that humans are not like God when we refuse to coerce people to love us. But if humans are like God when we refuse to coerce people to love us, then the doctrine does not anthropomorphize God, but reflects God’s true nature. So the objection is question-begging (i.e presupposes the very point in question).
On the same basis that the regenerate Adam rejected God in the Garden. Sin is by definition irrational, so it cannot truly be rationally justified, and therefore has no “basis.” But this side of the Beatific Vision, we can by our free will turn from love of God to the love of something finite in the place of God, and we can rationalize doing so by appealing to the goodness of some lesser good, and suppressing the truth in unrighteousness. This is called mortal sin.
Operative actual grace does not put an unregenerate person in a “neutral standing” before God. The person is still not in a state of grace (i.e. sanctifying grace, agape, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit), but by actual grace can say yes to come to the font of renewal in baptism, or from himself say no to that movement of grace. Yes, in this pilgrim way, in which both sin and repentance are possible, we see only through a glass darkly, not face to face. So, yes about the “infintesimal amount.”
Agreed. For anything that only God does, only God should receive the glory.
Your claims in this paragraph presuppose monergism at least regarding justification. But that’s not the Catholic doctrine. We participate in both initial justification (because we are not baptized against our will), and in the increase in justification, because that is what Protestants call sanctification. On that distinction between justification and the increase in justification, see “Justification: The Catholic Church and the Judaizers in St. Paulâs Letter to the Galatians.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeremy–
Welcome to my world. I have tried to make heads or tails of Catholic soteriology for a long time, now. I’m down to two realistic options:
1. Catholic soteriology is an incoherent, self-contradictory system, saying, in effect, that salvation is a totally free gift that we nevertheless have to pay for.
2. Or Catholic soteriology is more or less compatible with Sola Fide, in which case, it should lay down its arms and sue for peace (by which I mean it should cease its constant derision of JBFA).
You just wrote:
“There is, at the same time, nothing that God Himself does not will or do for manâs salvation, because even manâs salvation-effecting participation with grace is itself a gift of Godâs grace.”
If that is indeed true, then you have no real quarrel with Sola Fide. Lay down your weapons. And if you will not, then I have little choice but to assume the first option. Your ideas are contradictory. For God’s participation in our salvation and our participation in it cannot both be justificatory “at the same time and in the same way.”
In the final analysis, we are not justified by our faith together with our works. Neither are we justified by our “fides caritate formata” or anything else that stems from us (in that they stem from us). For even our “salvation-effecting participation” stems from God.
So, just admit to me that Sola Fide is all fine and good…and we can be at peace (soteriologically speaking).
(Of course, the issue of Mary is a whole nother ballgame. But that’s a fight for another day!)
Dr. Cross–
My purpose was not to make additional claims but to ascertain that when you said that our cooperation ought to be credited to God, you really meant it.
I tend to think that you do mean it, and that your opposition to JBFA is misplaced.
The reason that the Reformed cannot countenance an “increase in justification” is that for us (i.e., according to our theological terminology) justification is like pregnancy. Though a woman’s period of gestation certainly develops along and along, she cannot be “just a little bit pregnant.” Neither does she become “more pregnant.” You’re either pregnant or you’re not!
I think most of the interpretations of James 2 thrown at each other by Protestant and Catholic combatants are wrong headed. James isn’t in the business of deciding our disputes. He’s busy indicting hypocrisy in the church:
Those who say they are Christian but don’t live according to its precepts ought to be looked on with suspect. When James proclaims that “a person is justified by works and not by faith alone,” he is decrying hypocrisy both in the eyes of men and in the eyes of God.
Through integrity, a believer can indeed be vindicated when he approaches a church elder seeking church membership. The applicant either walks the talk, or he doesn’t.
But likewise, through integrity, a believer displays a living faith that issues forth in works of love. He is not saved by assent alone. He is not saved by a faith devoid of trust and commitment…such as the demons possess.
There’s no argument against Sola Fide here. In fact, what James seems to be railing against is poorly-formed Calvinism. His opposition is to Antinomianism…our stumbling block. Poorly-formed Catholicism tends towards legalism (which is upbraided many a time in Scripture). But not here.
Dr. Cross–
I wanted to add that when I said the unregenerate preveniently-graced person had “neutral standing before God,” I simply meant that they were in a position to say yes or no to repentance, yes or no to God.
You seem to rely on the motif of “God as the ultimate gentleman” who will not go out of his way to persuade anyone of the truth because (somehow) suasion is coercion. And yet, no man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him.
I’m intrigued by the ins and outs of the motif. It’s true in such verses as “Behold, I stand at the door and knock….” But it is NOT true of the Shepherd driving the sheep in Psalm 23. Thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me…refer to a hook and a cudgel designed to forcefully keep the sheep in line.
The Reformed don’t ditch notion of Jesus as “gentle healer,” but they’re pretty comfortable with harsher depictions:
John Donne
“Batter my heart, three-person’d God, for you as yet but knock, breathe, shine, and seek to mend;
That I may rise and stand, o’erthrow me, and bend your force to break, blow, burn, and make me new.
“I, like an usurp’d town to another due,
Labor to admit you, but oh, to no end;
Reason, your viceroy in me, me should defend, but is captiv’d, and proves weak or untrue. Yet dearly I love you, and would be lov’d fain, but am betroth’d unto your enemy.
“Divorce me, untie or break that knot again;
Take me to you, imprison me, for I,
Except you enthrall me, never shall be free,
Nor ever chaste, except you ravish me.”
Or one of Christendom’s most popular hymns, Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing.
“Oh, to grace how great a debtor
Daily I’m constrained to be!
Let that goodness like a fetter
Bind my wandering heart to Thee!
Prone to wander, Lord, I feel it.
Prone to leave the God I love.
Here’s my heart, oh, take and seal it.
Seal it for Thy courts above.”
Hi Hans,
In comment #13, I answered a question of yours. My purpose was not to discuss what sola fide entails, but to give a Catholic answer to your question.
I recognize that you think sola fide and Catholic teaching are compatible, at least insofar as they’ve been discussed here. That’s why I’ve said that if your position is substantially the same as Catholic teaching, then I take no issue with it. But I’m not going to say that sola fide “is all fine and good,” because many Reformed people do not think that it’s compatible with Catholic teaching, and instead see it as a rebuke of that teaching. Obviously, I don’t think that’s “all fine and good.”
This may historically have been, and continue to be, the result of a misunderstanding on one or both sides, and that’s no doubt a worthwhile thing to discuss. But that discussion wasn’t my intent, nor have I any wish to undertake it here.
Thanks for the chat, Hans, and may God bless you richly in your walk with Him.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Hello Hans (re: #37)
Thank you for clarifying.
The claim that for rational creatures having the capacity to use free will, friendship, being mutual, should involve free consent, because love is a free gift, not forced, is fully compatible with the truth that no man comes to Jesus unless the Father draws him.
This gets us to a deeper paradigm difference between sola scriptura and the Catholic tradition. It is summarized in what what Fr. Kimel once put as “It’s one thing to read Scripture and the Fathers; it’s quite another thing to read Scripture through the Fathers.” In the Catholic tradition, our individual interpretation of Scripture, including Psalm 23, does not get to be the standard by which we judge the Fathers, but instead, the Fathers and councils are the measure by which to guide our interpretation of Psalm 23. See “Sola Scriptura Redux: Matthew Barrett, Tradition, and Authority.” And in the Catholic tradition Christ’s shepherding of His flock as the Good Shepherd does not remove our individual free will, or disallow persons from freely committing apostasy.
Likewise, regarding the Donne and Robinson lines, if unqualified monergism were true, those would be the words of God alone, even if speaking through human mouths. But if they are not the words of God, but are the words of Donne and Robinson, then these are examples of humans participating freely in response to God’s grace, asking for more grace. And such supplications are an important part of the Catholic tradition, and so are not a reason for schism from the Catholic Church and her tradition. A problem for the monergistic notion is that it implies temporal nihilism, as I explained in 2009. And if it denies universalism, then it also creates a problem of evil, undermining the goodness of God. And it also creates a dilemma regarding sanctification, as I explained in 2014 in comment #22 of my response to Tim Challies.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeremy–
In other words, it’s all right with you if I am able to look beyond the mistaken thinking of many of your co-religionists and see the commonalities between us, but far be it from you to look beyond the failings of Protestants to see commonality with me. (Because, as we both know, Protestants never, ever misread Catholicism! đ)
You’re unwillingness to look further into this topic makes me wonder if you are threatened by the possibility of agreeing with JBFA (and of giving up your biases against it).
At any rate, I thoroughly enjoyed the exchange. May God speak to you and draw you near!
Dr. Cross–
1. Why does your definition of “free consent” seem to preclude persuasion? Is God required by rules of “fair play” to present us with the strongest case for the temptations of the flesh and to equally constrain his own case so as not to give it an unfair advantage? If you were to present me with a brand new Beamer to replace my own broken-down hunk of junk, should I turn you down because I like it too much (and thus I cannot “freely consent”)? You have foisted it upon me against my will, you tyrant!!
2. I don’t honestly believe that there is a “paradigm” difference between Catholicism and Protestantism on Sola Scriptura. Wherever the Church has not dogmatically defined the interpretation of a particular Bible passage, you are free to use reason and cultural background and linguistic analysis and tradition to come to your own conclusion. That’s all we do. And we are similarly constrained by our own denominational hierarchies and confessions. The distinction between us is with ecclesiastical authority, not Sola Scriptura.
3. You cannot make a biblical passage say what it obviously does not say. Sheep have very little free will when it comes to dealing with the Shepherd. You can, I suppose, say that this fact is irrelevant to the message of the psalm. But you cannot turn it on its head no matter how many misguided popes and councils and fathers say differently.
4. The Catholic Magisterium accepts only those church fathers whose teachings agree with it. (And if you submit only when an interpretation agrees with you, the person to whom you submit is you.) I’m sorry, Dr. Cross, but in this case NONE of our options meets your “principled difference” criterion. All that we have is our hearts and minds and best intentions, matched up with the available data, sifted by iron sharpening iron, and submitted to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
5. No one here is discussing an unqualified hyper-Calvinistic monergism. Compatibilism allows for a thorough and genuine participation in one’s own salvation. You’re not convincing me that there is any “principled difference” between your version of synergism and my version of monergism. In fact, in arguing against monergism, you often sound like you’re arguing against yourself! You have doubled down on the notion that our cooperation should be credited to God. That makes you a monergist in my book, perhaps in a qualified sense, but a monergist nonetheless. Quit running away from the label. It fits!
6. I like Challies, but he has a slanted view of Catholic soteriology. (Of course, you have a slanted view of Protestant soteriology, so I guess you’re even!)
7. Temporal nihilism? Hardly. I actually think we put MORE of an emphasis on the individual’s participation in his own salvation, on real progress in inherent righteousness, and on fighting off the temptation towards apostasy. And because we do, there are all kinds of down-to-earth reasons for us to struggle through sanctification. We get to stretch our spiritual muscles in ways we never could if we remained in heaven. Going up against the unmitigated terrors and untoward desires of this fallen world makes for a great training ground for maturation in the faith. Enduring suffering, overcoming suffering, and supporting others in their suffering produce enormous benefits in making us Christ-like.
8. The fact that we can say that “anyone who wants to come, may” is universalistic enough to absolve God of any inclination toward evil.
9. I don’t believe that the Catholic Church is the church Christ founded, so I cannot be said to be in schism from it. When I read the early church fathers, the similarity between them and modern Rome is that of a hawk and a hand saw. I kind of wish I could, but I find it extremely difficult to find Christ in Catholicism. The superstition and idolatry, as well as the syncretism with prevailing modern cultural and philosophical and political trends hangs in the air like smoke. I’m not denying that there is much to admire, but there is so much to detest that, in the end, the whole thing is a wash.
Hans,
It is good that you are ecumenically minded, but you must be aware much of Protestantism is not so ecumenically minded – volumes of ink were spilled by the Reformers and their heirs directly attacking RC soteriology and Trent. Your references to ECT/JDDJ documents and Benedict’s affirmation of sola fide, properly understood, were similarly rejected and criticized by many Reformed leaders and circles. So it’s not as if CtC articles forcefully defending RC soteriology via interaction with Protestant attacks on it are written disingenuously or with malice.
It is also important to note there are doctrines attendant to RC and Protestant justification – it’s not just synergism/monergism as your focus seems to be, but also other things like loss of salvation, baptism, venial/mortal sin, purgatory, merit and the nature of eternal rewards, imputation vs infusion and their functions, etc.
“I can read through the âfive causes of Justificationâ from the seventh chapter of the sixth session of the Council and avow every single solitary word.”
Do you agree with “the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one’s proper disposition and co-operation.”
The “sole formal cause” language affirming infusion has been a sticking point for many Protestant critics. The “duplex iustitia” concept has an interesting debate history at Regensburg and then Trent itself, but ultimately was not accepted.
As to the cooperation/grace and monergism/synergism issue, here are some statements you’ve made:
“The Reformed separate justification and sanctification, as well as the spiritual planes on which God and Man do their work. We would never say that our regenerate selves do not work heartily unto the Lord, or that we do not freely cooperate with his grace.”
“Man does not do Godâs work for him…and doesnât cooperate in Godâs own work. Thatâs what we mean when we say that one shouldnât steal Godâs glory. Donât attribute to yourself something already accomplished by God…or in the process of being accomplished by God. We collaborate with God in sanctification. We do not collaborate with him in justification.”
“Is cooperation gracious or isnât it?”
“Justification is by faith and not by works because it actually is effected by God and not by us.”
“Weâre given all kinds of agency in the process of sanctification.”
You contrast justification and sanctification and are focusing on JBFA. Is sanctification synergistic or mongergistic in your view? If monergistic, how is it different than justification? When you sin in sanctification, are you resisting God’s grace? When you progress in sanctification, are you cooperating with grace, and if so, is that cooperation gracious or not?
Hello Hans (re: #41)
I think a genuine dialogue regarding a disagreement can be fruitful only if the participants focus on one question at a time, for reasons I’ve explained here in 2009, here and here in 2010, here in 2012, here in 2014, and in reply to you in 2016 when you went by “Erik”. So I think that it wouldn’t be fruitful for me to continue until there is singular and focused point in question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Cletus–
First, let me just say…very cool reply. I really appreciate the tone.
Other than Luther, whom the Pope summarily excommunicated without just cause, the original Reformers were actually pretty accommodating. It was the Catholics who dug in their heels, and seemingly for political rather than theological reasons. That was followed up by the Thirty Years of Genocide against the German people. How conciliatory do you honestly expect folks to be after you wipe out at least a third of them?
The Catholic negotiators at Regensburg agreed to what was basically Double Justification (to which you alluded) and Calvin accepted. The Catholic hierarchy, however, reneged.
Who was it–Pole and Seripando?–offered it up at Trent. It went down in flames! Looking at it fairly, it was not the Protestants who were intransigent.
And the Catholics have been flexible at other places and times. A century or two after the Reformation, when Augustinian theologians started broaching some fairly Lutheran notions, it barely caused a ripple. And just look at the brouhaha between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. The two soteriologies are less compatible than than Reformed and Thomist. (In fact, the Jesuits derided the Dominicans as “Crypto-Calvinists.”) And yet, in the end, for the peace of the realm, the Pope decided everyone could just agree to disagree.
I don’t think Double Justification is the answer. But it’s s good starting place. To my mind, it’s a mash-up between JBFA and Thomism, and because JBFA is logically controlling in that situation, it becomes almost synonymous with Sola Fide. Anglo-Catholics don’t see it that way, however. So it’s a position people can agree on without agreeing on a position. (I am amazed that Newman never had to adjust his treatise on justification after his conversion. Perhaps Rome has mellowed a bit with the passing centuries.)
Let’s be frank. The Catholics at ECT harbored reservations and offered caveats to their acceptance of Sola Fide. JDDJ was not signed onto by any Lutherans Luther would have accepted as descendants. The conservative entities rejected it outright…and vehemently! It was modern Lutheranism and modern Catholicism playing footsie with one another. Benedict’s affirmation likewise included a caveat. And a caveat not acceptable to most Reformed folks (because it smuggles works in unless properly qualified).
I have more trouble than you letting CtC off the hook. It’s natural to see our own side as tough and uncompromising while seeing the opposition as stubborn and aggressive. But it’s all the same behaviors and attitudes. I don’t and won’t defend my cohorts’ willful blindness and uncharitableness. But Catholic dogmatic pedantry is legendary, as well. If you’re “ecumenically minded” yourself, at some point you’re going to have to acknowledge that Catholic disingenuousness is really a thing…and that it’s rampant.
I key in on soteriology because it’s one tenet we have a good deal of overlap on, especially historically. Catholics have become increasingly difficult to distinguish from Protestant Arminians. (Perhaps under the influence of Molinism? Predestination seems almost universally subsumed under the aegis of foreknowledge.)
Most of our differences concerning salvation stem from our distinct takes on apostasy: is it actual or apparent? Should the plants that grow up for a time–in the stony ground, in the thistles, on the path–be considered regenerate or not? (Or perhaps a tertium quid?) There is a qualitative difference, you know. The crops are rooted and grounded. The peripheral stalks have shallow roots or none. In fact, I call it the Parable of the Roots. For that seems to be the true deciding factor, not the soils. Resilient plants can push their roots downward through quite a lot of resistance.
Baptismal regeneration, sin distinctions, sacramental graces, purgation, merit…none of that really matters if justification is permanent from the get go. If it is truly “all of Christ,” most of our differences just melt away.
So, to you, does Trent affirm infusion to the exclusion of imputation? I’ve heard Dr. Cross say that Catholic soteriology INCLUDES a forensic element. Certainly, many Protestant theologians speak of a role for infusion.
What do the Tridentine writers mean by “…we are NOT ONLY REPUTED, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us…”?
I don’t know what the Latin word is right there, but “reputed” is a pretty good stand in for “reckoned,” which is a synonym for “imputed.” It’s ambiguous. Reputation can derive from the proclamation of God or the proclamation of Man. Trent may be deriding the Protestant position here, but it seems an odd place to do it.
The Reformed do not take a definitive position on whether sanctification is monergistic or synergistic. Perhaps you’re aware of Kevin DeYoung’s article where he seems to conclude that it’s not really either one. I think I tended toward synergism at one time but now lean monergistic. I’m with DeYoung, however, in that I don’t really think it matters all that much. It’s more in how you want to look at it, from God’s perspective or ours.
Can we resist grace? Yes. Can we cooperate with grace? Yes. Is our cooperation gracious? Yes and no. We are brand new creatures. Creatures mystically united with Christ. There is a sense in which we learn to cooperate on our own.
But we are already justified. We are already bought with a price. There is no possibility of working toward something we already possess.
That’s what the genuine potentiality of apostasy changes: all of a sudden, we’re earning our acceptance again! When we wander away, the Good Shepherd is not necessarily coming back for us. It’s up to us to remain in the fold….
Dr. Cross–
Probably no single theological topic is free standing, totally independent and unrelated to other topics. On an informal basis, genuine dialogue is often both free ranging and productive.
Be that as it may, I am perfectly content to conform to your preferences. On my last reply, I merely answered all of your arguments without veering to the right or the left in the slightest. So you’ll need to guide me as to your parameters. CtC articles often cover a (narrow) range of topics. I’m not sure it is even possible to do otherwise.
Yes, I always engage on the Internet in anonymous fashion. As we have small kids, my wife insists that I do so. It honestly scares me that I can look you or Jeremy or Cletus up and digitally stand on your street and stare into your bedroom window.
In compliance with your wishes, I’ll keep it narrow:
If even your cooperation with cooperative grace is gracious–not merely assisted by grace, but in some sense accomplished by grace and thus credited to God–how is your soteriology not (in that same sense, at least) monergistic?
Hans – it seems to me that this:
is the wrong way of looking at it. It seems to be saying that our acceptance is something we have, like a passport. It’s not. It’s something we are – spiritually alive. Mortal sin kills that life in us, just as cancer or poison kills out bodily life. It’s not ‘the Good Shepherd’ out there, coming for us. It is the Good Shepherd’s life living in us. We can kill that. But God is a God of resurrection.
Just my untrained way of looking at it – but it means that justification and sanctification are the same thing. Justification/sanctification are the spiritual life of Christ raising our souls from (spiritual) death.
jj
Hans,
“The Catholics at ECT harbored reservations and offered caveats to their acceptance of Sola Fide. JDDJ was not signed onto by any Lutherans Luther would have accepted as descendants. The conservative entities rejected it outright…and vehemently! It was modern Lutheranism and modern Catholicism playing footsie with one another. Benedictâs affirmation likewise included a caveat. And a caveat not acceptable to most Reformed folks (because it smuggles works in unless properly qualified).”
Well, now I’m confused. Earlier you said “The position you propounded to me, by the way, is unmistakably Sola Fide. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Thatâs ok. The Catholics in âEvangelicals and Catholics Together,â men like Avery Cardinal Dulles, Richard John Neuhaus, Peter Kreeft, and Robert George, willingly embraced the term. Heck, Benedict XVI, approvingly citing Martin Luther, embraced the term. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification (an ecumenical document hammered out between Catholics and Lutherans) embraced the term. Maybe itâs NOT as contentious and intractable an issue as weâve been led to believe!!”
That seemed to be quite optimistic and approving. Now, apparently the RC-Protestant divide on soteriology is not quite as close as you were previously affirming and criticizing CtC for being intractable on.
“And just look at the brouhaha between the Jesuits and the Dominicans. The two soteriologies are less compatible than than Reformed and Thomist.”
Thomists affirm RC soteriology and Trent just as much as Molinists.
“Baptismal regeneration, sin distinctions, sacramental graces, purgation, merit…none of that really matters if justification is permanent from the get go. ”
But justification is not permanent from the get go in RCism. That’s my point about attendant doctrines vs just focusing on “cooperation”. All the soteriological doctrines in RCism are of a cloth and flow from each other. So the real test about whether RCism is actually agreeable to your conception of JBFA is simple – do you agree to all those related doctrines? If not, you see the issue.
“What do the Tridentine writers mean by âwe are NOT ONLY REPUTED, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within usâ? I donât know what the Latin word is right there, but âreputedâ is a pretty good stand in for âreckoned,â which is a synonym for âimputed.â Itâs ambiguous.”
Did you see the canons on justification at end? It clarifies the view on imputation. Note, I agree there can be an element of imputation when one considers God’s word effects what it declares – one is declared just, one is truly made just, not only reckoned such by an ongoing alien righteousness. And that is compatible with inherent righteousness being the sole formal cause of justification (I mean, Trent makes both notes in the same sentence). And as you say, Protestants have a role for infusion in salvation, but not in the sphere of justification.
“Iâm with DeYoung, however, in that I donât really think it matters all that much…Can we resist grace? Yes. Can we cooperate with grace? Yes. Is our cooperation gracious? Yes and no.”
Now do you see why someone might be offended when you imply they are being disingenous or speaking out both sides of their mouth? Suddenly, it’s not so important to nail down exactly how our cooperation and grace work when it comes to your sanctification. All the questions you’ve asked about grace and cooperation and crediting God – apply them to your understanding of sanctification and see where it leads.
“Thatâs what the genuine potentiality of apostasy changes: all of a sudden, weâre earning our acceptance again! When we wander away, the Good Shepherd is not necessarily coming back for us. Itâs up to us to remain in the fold”
Why do you think the potential of apostasy means we’re “earning our acceptance” again? You have the potential to sin in sanctification – are you earning God’s favor again after repenting? As WCF notes:
“And therefore it is the duty of every one to give all diligence to make his calling and election sure” – is it up to you to make your election sure?
“God does continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified; and although they can never fall from the sate of justification, yet they may, by their sins, fall under Godâs fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.” – is it up to you to remain under the light of God’s countenance?
âTheir ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit, to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them.â – is your diligence in stirring up God’s grace up to you?
JJ–
If salvation is something we have, then it cannot be taken away. If it’s something we are, then it’s immortal and we cannot kill it.
Your view sounds awfully problematic to me. How can you look at the Almighty Christ as something that can be snuffed out? Why dismiss the depiction of the Good Shepherd as faithful and constant to track us down and return us to safekeeping? And there are frequent NT proclamations that he doesn’t lose a single soul entrusted into his care.
Justification (in Protestant terminology) is what God does for us. Sanctification is what we do for God. How can they be the same thing? In terms of the process of salvation, we keep the two of them together, just as you do. God declares us clean, forgiven…on account of the life and death and resurrection of Christ. And then we slowly become inherently righteous as we live our lives in and through him.
Cletus–
My point all along has been that there is a lot of overlap between Reformed and Thomistic soteriology…not that they’re identical. Catholics, in my view, are not consistent in terms of their system. And therein lies the rub. You can say that God does everything to effect salvation (both to will and to do) and then claim to be synergistic (that he doesn’t do everything, but that we have our role). That’s called self-contradiction. (Not paradox, contradiction.)
If you say that God does everything, you more or less agree with Sola Fide. So to spread vitriol far and wide against it makes no sense at all…unless your true beliefs are the second part of the contradictory equation.
And I have a sneaking suspicion that that’s actually the case: You like the sound of Sola Gratia. But when push comes to shove, your significance in terms of individual personal participation is paramount.
As far as I can tell, Thomists and Molinists agree on terminology, not salvific concepts. They’re are so incredibly different!
My point on permanence (and thus, on apostasy) is that this variance between us is the crux of the issue. You do possess a whole lot of “attendant doctrines,” as you put it. Well, these are required for impermanence. On the other hand, we can take them or leave them. They are pretty much irrelevant.
Canon XI from the Tridentine session on justification includes both imputation and infusion. The only reason infusion isn’t part of justification in Protestantism is that justification is permanent. When justification is totally gracious, it must logically be permanent (unless God can be unfaithful).
No, I cannot see where someone would be offended by our nonchalance concerning the details of sanctification. Logically, when sanctification is subsumed under a permanent form of justification, the details don’t matter all that much. We’re sheep. We’re in the pen or on the trail with the rest of the flock. Our misbehavior gets us a hook yanked around our neck or a cudgel slammed upside of the head. But our situation never really changes. Every day is another episode of “Life with the Shepherd.”
Conversely, your misbehavior (of the “mortal” variety) gets you thrown out of the pen and taken back in, thrown out of the pen and taken back in, thrown out of the pen….
And your eternal destiny depends on where you are in that cycle (of sin and repentance) when you finally kick the bucket!
From my vantage point–and this is exactly the message the WCF relays–we’re bring consistent. And you…are not.
The Parable of the Sower makes it clear that apostasy happens for five main reasons: lack of understanding, tribulation, persecution, the worries of this life, and the snares of wealth. (I’m guessing “worries” would include distractions and temptations.)
What I’ll never understand is how Catholics (and other Arminians) think God will protect us from everything but our old selves…our flesh. Wouldn’t that be job one? (This coating I’m applying to the chassis will protect your car against anything but rust. This new-fangled umbrella will shelter you from everything falling from the sky…except rain.)
“For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Cares? Desires? Grudges? Ambitions? Hurts? Disappointments? Confusions?Griefs? Embarrassments? Envies?
All covered.â¨â¨
Hans:
Why can we not kill it. Like our natural life, it is a gift, and one we can destroy.
Saying that Christ lives in us is, of course, metonymy. It is the divine life living in us – which we an certainly kill.
This is certainly Catholic, and certainly not Protestant in any form I have ever heard. My Reformed teachers always maintain that in ourselves we always remain personally unrighteous.
Hans,
“My point all along has been that there is a lot of overlap between Reformed and Thomistic soteriology”
I agree that if RCs are talking to Calvinists, a Thomist angle opens dialogue wider than a Molinist angle. But Thomists hold to Trent, they are not Calvinists nor Jansenists. Trent set boundaries that neither T/M school transgresses. So your question should concern the overlap between Reformed and Tridentine soteriology, not a particular school of thought on predestination and its view of the interaction between will and grace. But we know the answer already – you accuse Benedict of smuggling in works righteousness when he affirms jbfa, that is a faith formed by love, i.e. sanctifying grace indwelling in the soul. Which is Trent 101.
“You like the sound of Sola Gratia. But when push comes to shove, your significance in terms of individual personal participation is paramount.”
Is sanctification sola gratia?
“Thomists and Molinists agree on terminology, not salvific concepts. Theyâre are so incredibly different!”
You would need to substantiate that. Don’t merely state the differences between T/M, tell how one or both contravene Trent or even just the CCC.
“The only reason infusion isnât part of justification in Protestantism is that justification is permanent. When justification is totally gracious, it must logically be permanent (unless God can be unfaithful).”
So sanctification is not totally gracious?
“No, I cannot see where someone would be offended by our nonchalance concerning the details of sanctification. Logically, when sanctification is subsumed under a permanent form of justification, the details donât matter all that much.”
You’ve affirmed you can resist or cooperate with grace in sanctification. So, why can you not boast when you progress in sanctification? Why does God still get credit when you cooperate and don’t resist grace in avoiding sin? Why does your act of participating in sanctification not undermine God’s grace and sovereignty, but would in the sphere of justification?
“Conversely, your misbehavior (of the âmortalâ variety) gets you thrown out of the pen and taken back in, thrown out of the pen and taken back in, thrown out of the pen”
And your misbehavior in sanctification gets you thrown “under Godâs fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of His countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance” – somehow this is not a vicious God-dishonoring cycle though.
As for “eternal destiny”, I’m not sure how much comfort permanence brings when Calvin affirms a reprobate can be hoodwinked:
“experience shows that the reprobate are sometimes affected in a way so similar to the elect, that even in their own judgment there is no difference between them. Hence it is not strange, that by the Apostle a taste of heavenly gifts, and by Christ himself a temporary faith, is ascribed to them. Not that they truly perceive the power of spiritual grace and the sure light of faith; but the Lord, the better to convict them, and leave them without excuse, instills into their minds such a sense of his goodness as can be felt without the Spirit of adoption… Therefore, as God regenerates the elect only for ever by incorruptible seed, as the seed of life once sown in their hearts never perishes, so he effectually seals in them the grace of his adoption, that it may be sure and steadfast. But in this there is nothing to prevent an inferior operation of the Spirit from taking its course in the reprobate… Still it is correctly said, that the reprobate believe God to be propitious to them, inasmuch as they accept the gift of reconciliation, though confusedly and without due discernment; not that they are partakers of the same faith or regeneration with the children of God; but because, under a covering of hypocrisy, they seem to have a principle of faith in common with them. Nor do I even deny that God illumines their minds to this extent, that they recognize his grace; but that conviction he distinguishes from the peculiar testimony which he gives to his elect in this respect, that the reprobate never attain to the full result or to fruition. When he shows himself propitious to them, it is not as if he had truly rescued them from death, and taken them under his protection. He only gives them a manifestation of his present mercy. In the elect alone he implants the living root of faith, so that they persevere even to the end. Thus we dispose of the objection, that if God truly displays his grace, it must endure for ever. There is nothing inconsistent in this with the fact of his enlightening some with a present sense of grace, which afterwards proves evanescent.â
âLet no one think that those fall away who were of the predestined, called according to the purpose and truly sons of the promise. For those who appear to live piously may be called sons of God; but since they will eventually live impiously and die in that impiety, God does not call them sons in His foreknowledge. There are sons of God who do not yet appear so to us, but now do so to God; and there are those who, on account of some arrogated or temporal grace, are called so by us, but are not so to God.â
âthose are deleted from the book of life who, considered for a time to be children of God, afterwards depart to their own place… For even the reprobate take root in appearance, and yet they are not planted by the hand of God.â
Seems the Reformed should keep that in back of mind and pray accordingly. Just as RCs – Thomists included – should always take heed lest they be disqualified and accordingly pray for the grace of final perseverance common to the elect.
JJ–
Metonymy? Are you kidding me? When we say that the Lord Christ lives in us, we mean that, well, the Lord Christ himself, King of the Universe, lives in us. Nothing less.
So to you it’s just a little spiritual electricity that can get shorted out if you’re not careful? Bummer.
As for “becoming more and more inherently righteous” being Reformed, all we need do is turn to the WCF section on sanctification (chapter 13):
1. “They, who are once effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart, and a new spirit created in them, are further sanctified, really and personally, through the virtue of Christ’s death and resurrection, by his Word and Spirit dwelling in them: the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified; and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
2. “This sanctification is throughout, in the whole man; yet imperfect in this life, there abiding still some remnants of corruption in every part; whence ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war, the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.
3. “In which war, although the remaining corruption, for a time, may much prevail; yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome; and so, the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God.”
+++++++++++++
So, we do indeed grow in grace and personal holiness. You must have either misunderstood the Reformed guys you consulted, or they weren’t particularly knowledgeable.
Now, it is true that we have this light in “jars of clay.” So if by “in ourselves,” you mean, in our flesh, then sure, we are never perfected in this lifetime. How could anyone reasonably believe that we ever are?â¨
Hi Hans,
Your question to Tim in #12 was meant as a criticism of Catholic teaching. In your mind, the role that Catholic soteriology affords to man in salvation necessarily diminishes the role of God.
And yet, when I explained in #13 why that criticism is based on a false dilemma, you approved wholeheartedly of my rebuttal, declaring it “unmistakably Sola Fide. No ands ifs or buts” (#14). You claimed that my rebuttal of your position was in fact your position all along.
But apparently it wasn’t “unmistakably Sola Fide,” for only a short time later you reject my position and pose again the original dilemma. You wrote (#22),
You think that giving God full credit for our salvation means excluding man. According to you, we cannot fully include man and fully include God in effecting salvation, as I argued in #13, for that would be having our cake and eating it, too.
So, in #33, I again pointed out what was wrong with that criticism. I wrote,
I rebutted your criticism the same way I did in #13, basically rewording my original comment. Your response to this second rebuttal was to write (#35),
Again, you claim my rebuttal of your criticism as having been your position all along. Apparently, you always thought that we could have our cake and eat it, too.
You are contradicting yourself, saying, “There’s a dilemma in your beliefs”, while at the same time saying, “The fact that there’s no dilemma in your beliefs has been my belief all along.”
Moreover, you are using terms like sola fide, sola gratia, monergism, and “totally gracious” without defining any of them. This, too, makes a mess of your comments. According to you, comment #13 is “unmistakably Sola Fide.” And also according to you, I have “vilified” sola fide (#17), and I’m “threatened by the possibility of agreeing with it” (#40). The writers at this site “have attacked Sola Fide with incredible ferocity” (#16), and the Catholic Church has “frequently opposed” (#14) and “constantly derided” (#35) it.
But nowhere have I vilified what I wrote in comment #13, nor am I threatened by the possibility of believing what I wrote there, because I already believe it. The authors at this website have not attacked that position, much less with incredible ferocity. And the Catholic Church has nowhere opposed or derided what she teaches in section 2001 of her catechism, upon which my comment was based. If comment #13 really is “unmistakably Sola Fide,” then your accusations are moot. There is no quarrel with that position on the Catholic side, for it’s always been the Catholic position. The only quarrel with it here is from you, as you both criticize it and call it your belief all along.
That’s what happens when you don’t define your terms.
Finally, you wrote (#40),
I don’t know what you’re hoping to gain by such a barefaced twisting of my words, but the truth isn’t it.
The contradiction that I’ve shown here, and the vague and conflicting use of terminology, run throughout your comments and make it difficult to know what you are saying. And no, it will not do, as you have also done, to accuse the Catholic Church at this point of similar contradictions, inconsistencies, or unfairness. The Catholic Church is not responsible for what you’ve written here. You are. And as it stands, it is not her position, but yours that is the “inconsistent, self-contradictory system.”
That’s why I don’t see much point in continuing this discussion with you.
In Christ,
Jeremy
Jeremy–
I’m trying with my last ounce to give you the benefit of the doubt. Often, my first impression regarding Catholic argument is that you are willfully speaking out of both sides of your mouth. I keep having to remind myself that it’s most probably the paradigm difference. If I push hard enough for details, it will become apparent why your thoughts are not contradictory.
Can you at least try to explain to me how what you have said makes sense?
How can these two things both be true?
1. Our salvation is directly dependent on our efforts.
2. Our salvation-effecting participation with grace is itself a gift of Godâs grace. (In other words, our efforts are contingent on a movement of God’s grace, making them…indirect.)
All I want is for you to get off the fence and pick a side. Pick #1 (and quit with the pretense that you believe #2) or pick #2 (and call out those Catholics who still hold to #1).
Cletus–
I have lost a lot of sleep and am utterly exhausted. So here is a partial reply. I’ll have more to say on your critique of the Protestant notion of sanctification and on the differences between us regarding assurance.
The “boundaries” set by Trent that neither Jesuits nor Dominicans “transgress” were written by those groups for those groups. You could’ve just as easily gotten Thomists and Lutherans together and produced a document that neither one “transgressed.” But isn’t that rather pointless? (Or at least pointless to point it out?)
I still can’t tell what your position IS on works righteousness! And my “accusation” is not so much that you guys “smuggle it in” as that you are unwilling to fend it off. (The reason Catholics have a reputation for legalism is that so many lay Catholics ARE works oriented. The number one thing that we hear from Catholics converting to Evangelicalism is how stiflingly legalistic their former faith commitment was.)
Basically, all that JBFA is, is a hedge work around Sola Gratia, making sure we don’t wander off the reservation. I don’t know how to interpret the Catholic opposition to Sola Fide other than as an inadequate commitment to Sola Gratia.
Supposedly, some Reformed believers have a tendency toward Antinomianism. I myself have never seen it. Perhaps in some of the “Old Light” groups.
You’re insistent on knowing whether sanctification is Sola Gratia. Yes, I believe that it is. But there’s nothing in Scripture that indicates that it needs to be. We’re allowed to earn “crowns” in heaven. We’re not allowed to earn our salvation.
Could perfecting our holiness make us boastful? I suppose, but then it wouldn’t be holiness, would it? We would be regressing rather than progressing. Losing crowns rather than gaining them. Sanctification is an entirely different situation from justification, and as such, entirely different rules apply.