Alister McGrath’s Conversion on Justification
May 5th, 2020 | By Bryan Cross | Category: Blog PostsOne of the most important objections raised here at Called To Communion against the Catholic doctrine of justification has been based in large part on the Protestant theologian Alister McGrath’s work on the topic. That objection has now been undermined by McGrath’s change of position.
For Luther and Calvin, and from a Protestant point of view in general, the doctrine of justification is the articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae (the article by which the church stands or falls). From this point of view, if the Catholic Church got justification wrong at the Council of Trent, then the Catholic Church ceases to be the Church, and Protestants were right to break from her.
The key point of disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church on the doctrine of justification is whether as was taught at the Council of Trent justification is by the infusion of righteousness into our hearts, or whether as the Protestants held we are justified by extra nos imputation, by God crediting Christ’s obedience to our account, and our sins to His account.
Here at CTC I have argued that the doctrine of justification taught by the Church Fathers is not that of extra nos imputation but rather that of infusion. I have argued similarly that the Council of Trent was not a break from but in complete continuity with the Second Council of Orange in the sixth century.
One objection I have received here is that St. Augustine “goofed” on justification, and the whole medieval world followed him. The objection has been based on McGrath’s work on justification. The first edition of his Iustitia Dei: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification was published in 1986, the second in 1998, and the third edition in 2005. In each of these he maintained that the Latin world mistakenly followed St. Augustine’s interpretation of the Latin iustificare from the Greek δικαιοῦν (dikaioun) as iustum facere (‘to make righteous’). And I have laid out a problem for this position in comments #274, #330, and #332 of the Ecclesial Deism thread. McGrath’s claim in these editions of his work allowed contemporary Protestants to argue that the Protestant Reformers were recovering the original notion of justification by returning to the Greek.
The fourth edition of McGrath’s Iustitia Dei has just been published (March 26, 2020). And in it, as Michael Barber explains, “McGrath has discovered that the Greek fathers read justification as involving transformation.” Barber quotes McGrath as follows:
It has become a commonplace in some quarters to suggest that the dik group of terms–particularly the verb dikaioo, “to justify”–are naturally translated as being “treated as righteous” or “reckoned as righteous”, and that Paul’s Greek-speaking readers would have understood him in this way. This may be true at the purely linguistic level; however, the Greek Christian preoccupation with the strongly transformative soteriological metaphor of deification appears to have led to justification being treated in a factitive sense. This is not, however, to be seen as a conceptual imposition on Pauline thought, but rather a discernment of this aspect of his soteriological narrative.In short, McGrath now sees the early Greek Christian conception of justification as that of making righteous, not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants. Maintaining the Protestant conception of justification now requires biting an even larger “ecclesial deism” bullet.
See Michael Barber’s essay, “Justification in the Greek Fathers: An Important Reversal in the New Edition of Iustitia Dei (Alister McGrath).”
The difference in Justification by Roman Catholics and Protestants is that the Protestants rightly emphasize grace through faith and the Roman Catholics believe in grace through faith plus merit.
Merit is itself grace. When I tell my child that I will give him a sweet if he cleans his room, the sweet is not something I owe him because of some external system that obliges me to do so. My child could not have cleaned his room if I had not fathered him. It is my gracious offer to him – the grace of a creature.
Much more when God says ‘well done, thou good and faithful servant’ to His creatures. They could not do what He has told them to except by His creation and empowering. Yet He graciously rewards my efforts to please Him with ascribing merit to them – the Grace of the Creator.
//In short, McGrath now sees the early Greek Christian conception of justification as that of making righteous, not as the declarative extra nos imputation conception of justification held by the Protestants.//
Although McGrath reads the Greek fathers as seeing in justification in a factitive sense of righteousness, it is a begging of the question to suggest, or rather imply that the forensic act of justification is not a factitive transformation of the relationship between God and man, and further the quote does not say that the Greeks considered ‘dikaioo’ itself as ontologically.
Remembering that for McGrath, he already in the previous editions wrote that the view of justification did not separate the forensic from the transformational, which ia to say their understanding of justification was transformational. That however is not to say that their understanding of the meaning of the term ‘dikaioo’ was itself renovative.
Perhaps evidence to this claim could be provided.
In the love of Christ.
Where are the historical Greeks that believed like Protestants? Where are these people? What were they called? What happened to them? Where is the historical proof for the Protestant interpretation? I’m not interested in arguing over whether the interpretation is right or not, I’m looking for historical evidence that supports such conclusion.
Bryan,
thanks for sharing this. I think this is a remarkable shift. I was pleasantly surprised how much was added in this new edition in regards to the Patristic view before Augustine, and particularly that section on the Greek Fathers. No doubt that they conceived justification as producing an ontollogical transformation rather than the mere imputation of the reformers.
Certainly a bigger bullet to bite for our protestant brothers.
Catholics spilled a lot of ink on McGrath’s calling Luther’s take on justification “a theological novum.” McGrath, for his part, stated that this interpretation of his claim was entirely wrong. That didn’t stop Catholics for a split second. Nobody bothers to check anything. It sounds good for our side. Let’s run with it.
If McGrath believes what you say he believes, he would have had the integrity to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy. And if not Orthodoxy, then Catholicism. And if not Catholicism, then Anglo-Catholicism. Alas and alack, he is still a card-carrying member of the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Communion, and generally Reformed, to boot.
Here he is in a 2019 interview:
“For Luther, who I agree with on this occasion, what justification by faith means is not, “I choose to believe in God and as a result, God says, ‘Oh, you are justified.’” It’s much more: Even the faith I have by which I embrace God is God’s gracious gift to me. It’s about God reaching his hand out towards me, not me reaching my hand out towards him. It’s this wonderful idea of God, in effect, providing all we need. That’s such an important emphasis because we often feel that there are certain things that we need to achieve in order to be right with God. Luther is saying, “No, no. God does it.” We need to trust God and get on in the knowledge that that relationship with him is secure.”
I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the man himself, espousing forensic justification and “extra nos” imputation. Not much of a “conversion” if you ask me.
Hans June: I don’t think you have “burst our bubble” in any way. We are not judging McGrath’s integrity at all. You can believe that “extra nos” justification is a theological novum but still decide to be a Protestant. That’s his choice and only God can judge his heart.
The reason this is important is the sort of question it raises for the Protestant camp. For instance, if justification is the articulus stantis et cadentes ecclesiae, just as Luther pointed out, why do you think no Christian author before Luther knew or wrote about it before him?
In a recent exchange I had with Protestant apologist James White he argued that you could find the concept of forensic justification on the The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus. The fact of the matter is that you can see justification as imputation in St Augustin for instance, but the key distinction is that they do not deny the transformational aspect of it. See for instance what Mathetes says just after he finishes talking about imputed justification:
“….by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life, so that we should not be anxious concerning clothing and food.”
Did he mean that Christ’s wisdom, Light, Power and Life is just “imputed” on us as an extra nos quality?
It is so evident that this idea of “extra nos” righteousness that excludes the inner transformation of the individual is so foreign to the Church Fathers that even such a belligerent protestant apologist as Dr. White prefers to avoid the discussion.
Now the charge of innovation in Luther’s theology is nothing new. In the fourth edition of his book McGrath shows how Heinrich Denifle in 1,904 showed how Luther’s idea of the Righteousness of God contradicted no less than 60 doctors of the western Church. Moreover, he shows how Luther came up with this idea because of his continual struggles with his “carnal mind” (i.e., lust, pride, etc) as St Augustine would call it.
After reading the second book of Denifle’s series, which is so thoroughly documented, I couldn’t stop thinking how difficult it is to defend the Protestant position. On one hand you have this idea that the “gospel” was really discovered in the middle ages, or else why no Christian author before Luther talked about it. But on the other hand, you will have to also believe that God chose someone like Luther to do this. I don’t want to talk about Luther’s many issues with some serious sins here since they have been well documented elsewhere, but just to point this factor as well.
So, I see how all this scholarly developments have shed some light on issues that previously were ignored in the Protestant camp. How to deal with them is your challenge, but so far I haven’t seen any convincing answers to those key questions.
Hugo–
Thanks for your reply!
McGrath is no longer at Wycliffe Hall (an Evangelical institution) but is a professor at Oxford proper. He may be in an Anglican position, but even if he were, he could switch to Roman Catholicism with no loss of academic prestige or financial status. You would have me believe that an astronaut who had walked on the moon could join the Flat Earth Society with his integrity intact. Poppycock! The type of theological novum you want McGrath to be espousing would make him a heretic to remain where he is. It’s simply not viable. You mistake his intent.
It’s funny, but I don’t see any “challenging” questions being raised. JBFA is clearly taught by Scriptures, by Clement of Rome, and by Mathetes (as you state). Not much of a conundrum!
And yes, the New Testament, St. Clement, and Mathetes all also speak of holiness and obedience. We Protestants, no matter what you may have heard, are not anti-transformational. It’s yet one more thing God does for us and in no way affects justification. Mathetes never implies that it does.
What word or phrase in his list do you imagine that Protestants have difficulty with?
The Savior desired…
–to lead us to trust in His kindness.
–to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life.
–to not be anxious concerning clothing and food.
It may surprise you to learn that “extra nos” righteousness in no way excludes the inner transformation of the believer. Union with Christ is called the ground of our justification. In fact, we have absolutely no problem with impartation within the process of sanctification.
What does an obscure nineteenth-century Dominican polemicist have to do with anything? Rome has only identified 36 doctors of the church, so I assume you mean church fathers. Besides, it doesn’t matter how many fathers got things wrong. Why should we care? Hyperdulia is clearly a theological novum. How many church fathers espouse it? The papacy is clearly a theological novum. How many church fathers espouse it? The Assumption is clearly a theological novum. How many church fathers espouse it? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know we cannot trust church fathers as far as we can throw them.
Why do you care about Luther’s ethics? He was a blue-collar German. Have you ever been around dairy farmers or construction workers? They don’t talk so pretty. Get ahold of SAINT Thomas More’s push back against Luther. He don’t talk so pretty. So yeah, Luther’s language was pretty unwholesome.
Yeah, he was anti-Semitic. So have you quit reading St. Chrysostom and St. Jerome? Where did Luther pick up his anti-Semitism, anyway? From the Roman Catholic Church most likely. He was, after all, a Catholic for the majority of his life.
McGrath’s mention of a theological novum in the first three editions had to do with a new ANALYSIS of justification. The theoretical split into justification and sanctification. Nothing heretical in the least. And the results were not all that new. Similar treatments show up throughout the medieval period, as well as in Augustinian circles after the Reformation, when the topic was no longer being politicized.
Bryan, how does McGarth’s concession on the Greek fathers impact how he views the Latin fathers? Would you say that the Greek and Latin fathers are similar in their view of justification? Good resource to note the difference?
Hans,
the problem that I see in the Protestant position on Justification is one you have omitted. No one said that the Church Fathers didn’t use the term justification by faith alone. Some of them certainly did, but clearly their view on Justification is not the same as yours. I think is easy to argue that the unanimous consensus of the Fathers is that Justification implied an ontological transformation. Something that Protestantism clearly denies. Hence, in yous system justification is only forensic and external to the believer, that’s why its appropriately called it “extra-nos”.
So when approaching a discussion about a heresy, the question is not so much what the areas of agreement are but rather those in which a position is denied. You and me can agree that Justification involves a declaration (i.e., forensic) and also that we are justified by Faith alone (i.e., good works don’t have any role in our initial justification). The issue really is what you deny: that justification divinizes us. That is: that we become truly righteous, in the ontological sense.
So, if your argument holds you will have to prove that the early Church also denied what you denied, not that it agreed with what we both agree.
At the end of the day Luther said that justificatio est articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesiae. And Melanchton said that these ideas came from Augustine and Ambrose (“so man nun fragt, warum sonder ich euch denn von der vorigen kirchen? wir sondern uns nicht von der vorigen rechten kirchen . Ich halte es eben das, welches Ambrosius und Augustinus gelehret haben”).
So, I am open to see your Patristic evidence that proves that “extra nos” righteousness is not a theological innovation of the middle ages, and was clearly taught in the early Church. I spent some good time trying to find that myself and was not successful. After all that search, I ended up being Catholic. That’s when you inevitable end up when you follow that trail. But again, I am open to change my mind if the evidence proves it.
All the best.
Hugo.
If McGrath’s characterizing the Protestant notion of justification (the aforementioned “extra nos”) as a novelty be inadequate, hear Martin Luther on the matter. “The word of God is being preached to us today. We must hear and receive it without any argument. We must not become questioners who ask God why he has brought the sound doctrine to light at this time and not in former times.” (Luther’s Works, vol. 17 [St. Louis: Concordia, 1972], p. 222
Protestantism is a XVI century form of Christianity that really does not take into account not only EVERYTHING the apostle Paul actually wrote on salvation but what Jesus also clearly taught on salvation. Both Jesus and Paul clearly reject faith alone and once saved always saved. Ask a Lutheran or calvinist protestant: do you have to avoid sexual sins so that God does not send you to hell? Yes or no? and they usually avoid answering this simple question and the right answer is yes according to Matthew 5:29-30 and Romans 8:13; 1 Cor 6:9-10; Ephesians 5:5-6 etc. James 2:24 had to be thrown by luther and twisted by calvin to make protestantism survive.
I don’t think is a good idea to hold the position that the Church didn’t understand the gospel up until Martin Luther. That sounds as an eerie similar argument to that of the Mormons, that said that Joseph Smith came to recover the gospel just 200 years ago. Bryan has a really good article on ecclesial deism in this site. I recommend it to you.
If God transforms our soul enough to make us completely righteous then how on earth does our righteousness lose power to our will to sin? It would seem this righteousness is inferior. If it is inferior and not able to withstand a person’s temptation then this righteousness is clearly not righteous enough for God’s standards to enter the Kingdom of heaven. How could anyone dare sin if their inner being is so transformed to not even consider sinning? Then that would mean God’s righteousness failed within us if we sin. Does God’s righteousness fail?
Hello Ben (re: #14)
Your question is loaded, because it conflates righteousness and fixedness in righteousness; these are distinct gifts. In this present life in a state of grace our will has infused agape, and we are therefore in that respect righteous. But our will does not yet have that fixedness in agape, such that we cannot lose it through mortal sin. The angels and saints in heaven have both righteousness and fixedness in righteousness. They have both gifts, both righteousness and the gift of not being able to lose righteousness. But that gift of fixedness is not offered to us in the pilgrim way in this present life. Instead we pray for the gift of perseverance, precisely because we do not already have the gift of fixedness in righteousness. If we die in a state of grace, then we will receive the gift of fixedness in righteousness.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Imputed righteousness was not a new idea invented by Luther. Rather, he inherited it from Catholicism. After all, according to Catholic theology the forgiveness of sins one receives as a result of having gone to confession is a purely forensic act of justification, whereby the righteous deeds of Christ and the Saints, stored in the Treasury of Merits, are imputed on the penitent. The same idea is behind the concept of indulgences. According to Catholic theology neither the sacrament of confession nor indulgences have a transformational effect. One is not holier after having benefitted from them than one was before.
In Catholic theology forgiveness of sins as a result of a transformational effect of a sacrament is limited to baptism. So according to Catholic theology, there are two different ways to receive the forgiveness of sins: For the unbaptized it is by receiving infused righteousness in baptism, for the baptized by receiving imputed righteousness in the sacrament of cofession. Another difference between these two sacraments concerns their respective effect. Compared to the justification one receives in the sacrament of baptism the justification one receives is the sacrament of confession is limited. Whereas in the sacrament of baptism one is freed from the eternal and temporal punishment of sins, in the sacrament of confession one is only freed from the eternal punishment of sins.
The elements of Luther’s soteriology were not new, but the way these elements were applied. Whereas according to Catholic theology only the baptized are justified by imputed righteousness, according to Lutheran theology this also applies to the unbaptized. And whereas according to Catholic theology only the unbaptized can be freed from the temporal punishment of sins, according to Lutheran theology it is also for baptized people that the forgiveness of sins has this effect. This is because according to Luther and unlike in Catholic theology baptism not only has the power to forgive past sins, but also future sins.
Hello Patrick,
You wrote:
“After all, according to Catholic theology the forgiveness of sins one receives as a result of having gone to confession is a purely forensic act of justification, whereby the righteous deeds of Christ and the Saints, stored in the Treasury of Merits, are imputed on the penitent.”
Where are you seeing the Catholic Church teach this?
In the Catechism, the Church teaches that “The whole power of the sacrament of Penance consists in restoring us to God’s grace and joining us with him in an intimate friendship… Indeed, the sacrament of Reconciliation with God brings about a true “spiritual resurrection,” restoration of the dignity and blessings of the life of the children of God, of which the most precious is friendship with God.” (1468)
The sacrament returns us to a state of justification, in other words. And in Catholic teaching, as detailed in this post and those linked above, justification in the Catholic view consists of an interior change rather than an exterior imputation.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
To say that the justification one receives in the sacrament of confession is purely forensic is indeed an overstatement. To be more precise one would have to say that it is partly transformational and partly forensic. The transformational part consists in receiving again the sanctifying grace one has lost by committing a mortal sin, whereas the forensic part consists in the view that despite having received sanctifying grace one nevertheless is faced with the prospect of being punished for the sin or sins one has committed and that avoidance of such punishment can only be achieved by a forensic act of justification. If the justification one receives in the sacrament of confession was purely transformational, the effect of this sacrament would be exactly the same as that of baptism. It seems to me that given that in both sacraments one receives sanctifying grace they actually should have the same effect.
Hello Patrick,
Thank you for clarifying. I’d be interested in understanding where you believe the Catholic Church teaches this “imputation” view of temporal punishment and indulgences. Again, to quote the Catechism:
“Every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the ‘temporal punishment’ of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.” (1472)
In other words, the removal of “temporal punishment” is not due to imputation of Christ’s or the Saint’s righteousness. It is not as if God looks upon the sinner as if they had the moral record of the saints, and thus decides not to punish them. Rather, remission of temporal punishment is precisely accomplished through a change in the inner life of the Christian. That is why the Catechism can say that “fervent charity” within the heart of the penitent can remit the temporal punishment of sin. Thus, when the Church speaks of “opening the treasury of merits” for Christians to “obtain…the remission of the temporal punishment for sin,” it seems best to understand that not as an imputation, but as a further inward purification from the attachments of sin. (1478)
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hello Jordan
According to the Catechism if I understand it correctly purification by means of a fervent charity is only one way to attain such charity. In such a case obviously there is no need of an indulgence. However, if such a fervent charity is absent, an indulgence can achieve the same result. Now, I cannot see how the good works of Christ and the Saints can be of benefit to a person by diminishing or eliminating temporal punishment, unless these works are credited to that person by means of imputed righteousness.
If in the sacrament of confession the remission of temporal punishment is accomplished by a change in the inner life of the person benefitting from the sacrament, this is exactly what according to Catholic theology happens in the sacrament of baptism. In the one case sanctifying grace is infused for the first time, in the other case again after having lost it. But while in baptism both eternal and temporal punishment is eliminated, in the sacrament of confession this usually applies only to the former. But this means that one and the same cause has different effects. In order to explain this, I can only think of three possibilites: 1. In the sacrament of confession one receives a lesser amount of sanctifying grace than in baptism. 2. The sanctifying grace received in baptism and that received in the sacrament of confession are of a different kind. 3. In the sacrament of confession God keeps sanctifying grace from realizing its full potential.
So, one can say that according to Catholic theology after baptism God’s grace decreases. It can no longer accomplish what it did in baptism. But in Lutheran theology and as far as I can see in all versions of Protestantism no such decrease of God’s grace is assumed, and in my view with respect to justification this is the key point of disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic church and not whether righteousness is infused or imputed, especially as I have said before the concept of imputed righteousness is not absent in Catholic theology.
If with respect to justification the only difference between Protestantism and Catholicism was whether righteousness is infused or imputed, this would not make much of a difference. The following analogy may make this clear: Imagine I have a debt I cannot pay back. Now there are two scenarios, in which my debt is paid: In the first scenario a friend of mine who is very rich pays the debt on my behalf, using his own money. In the second scenario the friend transfers money to my bank account, and with this money, which now is my possession, I am able to pay back the debt. The first scenario represents the Lutheran position the second the Catholic one. The friend is Christ, the money is righteousness and the debt is the debt we have towards God.
Hello Patrick,
Thanks again for your response. You wrote:
“I cannot see how the good works of Christ and the Saints can be of benefit to a person by diminishing or eliminating temporal punishment, unless these works are credited to that person by means of imputed righteousness.”
So just to clarify, are you arguing that the Catholic Church does not teach imputation directly, but rather that it is a necessary implication of her teaching on indulgences? In other words, is your argument that she must be teaching imputation because that is the only way that the merits of Christ and the saints can benefit the penitent?
If so, I’d suggest an alternative view from the Council of Trent, which teaches:
“For though no one can be just except he to whom the merits of the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet this takes place in that justification of the sinner, when by the merit of the most holy passion, the charity of God is poured forth by the Holy Ghost in the hearts of those who are justified and inheres in them; whence man through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity.”
In other words, Christ wins justification for us not through imputation but rather by meriting an infusion of grace on our behalf. The merits of the saints likewise can bring down an infusion of grace for the penitent because they are all members of Christ’s mystical body. This is what I believe the Catechism is referring to when it teaches:
“An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishments due for their sins. Thus the Church does not want simply to come to the aid of these Christians, but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity.” (1478)
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Hi Patrick,
Sorry to interrupt this thread you’ve got going with Jordan, but as I was following along I saw something I’d like to comment on.
The analogy in your last comment is interesting. I disagree that the two scenarios are not much different. In the second (Catholic) scenario, I have a choice: I can pay back the debt with the money my friend transferred to me, OR I can use that money to buy a new Ferrari. It is my choice, since the money is in my bank account. The repayment of the debt requires my cooperation. The first scenario offers no such choice, and requires no cooperation.
Perhaps that disctinction is a necessary one with regard to infused and imputed righteousness..?
Patrick – you said:
“I cannot see how the good works of Christ and the Saints can be of benefit to a person by diminishing or eliminating temporal punishment, unless these works are credited to that person by means of imputed righteousness.”
It seems to me at least part of the problem here is a kind of individualistic view. Maybe an analogy would help. If I get a pay rise, it helps my family, even if I don’t actually put any money into their individual accounts.
The Church is the Body of Christ. What benefits one member benefits all; and it should be a warning to me that when I sin, it harms the Body, not just me personally.
Neither with respect to the analogy of using the money one gets to buy a new Ferrari nor with respect to the analogy of a pay rise I see what exactly these analogies refer to. As for the latter analogy, I further don’t see who the members of the family represent.
Patrick,
Buying the Ferrari would be akin to rejecting God’s grace (e.g. the money He deposited into our account). The Catechism states in paragraph 1993:
“Justification establishes cooperation between God’s grace and man’s freedom. On man’s part it is expressed by the assent of faith to the Word of God, which invites him to conversion, and in the cooperation of charity with the prompting of the Holy Spirit who precedes and preserves his assent:
When God touches man’s heart through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself is not inactive while receiving that inspiration, since he could reject it; and yet, without God’s grace, he cannot by his own free will move himself toward justice in God’s sight.”
Patrick – the members of the family are the Church – including those who have gone ahead. We are all in this together. If a member of the Body suffers, all suffer; if a member thrives, all thrive.
John Thayer Jensen, I don’t see how your point is relevant here. If one makes use of an indulgence, it is only one person who benefits from it, either the one who makes use of it or a deceased person on whose behalf the indulgence is made use of.
Ken, in my analogy the payment of the debt refers to what in Catholic theology is called “sanctifying grace”. What you are referring to is what in Catholic theology is called “actual grace”.
Coming back to my analogy, as I said, the difference between the two ways the debt is paid is certainly there, but it really doesn’t make much of a difference. After all, in both scenarios the effect is the same: the debt is paid. Where in my view the real difference between the Catholic and the Protestant viewpoints lies is how much is paid. Whereas according to the Protestant viewpoint everything is paid, according to the Catholic viewpoint only part of the debt is paid, and as for the remaining debt one has to work to earn money, which then can be used to pay it.
As for the view that Luther got his idea of imputed righteousness from Catholicism, this may be made clear, if one expresses the Lutheran view of justification using the terminology of Catholic theology. Accordingly, justification according to Luther is a plenary indulgence granted by God in response to a person’s faith in Christ.
I’m off for one week. If anyone wants to respond to my comments he can take his or her time.
@Patrick:
How do you know this is so? I think that what benefits me benefits the body – and what benefits the body benefits me. If you are blessed, this blesses me. I think this is the point, not only of indulgences, but, indeed, of Christ’s sacrifice. I think this is what St Paul means in I Corinthians 12.
John Thayer Jensen, the purpose of an indulgence is the reduction or the elimination of temporal punishment for sins a certain person has committed. I don’t see in what way a person can benefit from an indulgence aimed at reducing or eliminating another person’s temporal punishment for sins.
@Patrick:
Perhaps that is because you can’t see how, when someone unknown to you somewhere in the world is helped in any way – physically, emotionally, spiritually, financially, whatever – you yourself benefit. It is not difficult. John Donne saw it – No man is an island. He spoke there of the other’s loss; the other’s gain is my gain as well.
Hello Patrick (re: #16)
Welcome to the CTC forum. You wrote:
This is a confused misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine. See comment #260 in the Atonement thread.
Again, see the distinction between the reatus culpa and the reatus poena in comment #218 in the Atonement thread. Indulges are only about the temporal debt, but the sacrament of confession is not; it is about the reatus culpa. That’s why it is false that one is no holier after confession than before.
That is a misrepresentation of Catholic doctrine.
No, that’s false. The Catholic doctrine of baptism does include infused (not imputed) righteousness, but the same is true of the Catholic doctrine concerning the sacrament of confession.
You’re right about baptism also removing all temporal debt, and the sacrament of confession not doing so. But the removal of temporal debt is not part of justification. So there is not a greater or lesser justification in the removal and non-removal of temporal debt.
That’s a misrepresentation of Catholic theology. See my “Imputations and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig.”
Again, this misrepresents Catholic theology. Removing temporal punishment from the baptized is precisely what plenary indulgences do.
For the problems with that claim see my “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer.”
Blessings to you on this Lord’s Day.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Hello Bryan
If it is because of venial sins one goes to confession it seems to me that the forgiveness of sins one receives is purely forensic. After all, sanctifying grace is still present in the penitent. If there is no infusion of sanctifying grace what exactly is it that sanctifies the penitent?
You wrote that indulgences are only about temporal debt, whereas the sacrament of confession is not. But this is only the case when mortal sins are involved. If the penitent is in a state of grace and wants only venial sins forgiven, the sacrament of confession is also only about temporal debt. So, at least when only venial sins are involved, the forgiveness of sins one receives in the sacrament of confession is only forensic.
In comment 260 of the Atonement thread you wrote that God forgives us not by changing his attitude towards us, but by changing us. But when we forgive others what they have done to us it is clearly the former that applies, as we are not able to transform those we forgive. So “to forgive someone” must have a different meaning when referring to God, even though the same word is used, and in several passages in the New Testament a connection is made between our forgiving our fellow men and God forgiving us. Moreover, even God can only forgive sins that exist. But if God transforms us into perfectly righteousness beings there are no sins to be forgiven left. So, if not temporarily then at least logically the forgiveness of sins must precede the spiritual transformation of a person.
You wrote that there is not a greater or lesser justification in the removal and non-removal of temporal debt. Now if this is the case I don’t see why God should not regard a person with temporal debt just as justified as a person without that debt and treat them alike in admitting both of them immidiately after their death into Heaven.
You wrote that removing temporal punishment from the baptized is exactly what plenary indulgences do. But as the removal of temporal punishment due to a plenary indulgence is a forensic and not a transformational act, then even in Catholic theology the saving effect of baptism is at least partially forensic.
As for my statement that according to Luther baptism not only has the power to forgive past sins, but also future sins, what I meant is that baptism keeps the power to forgive sins even after it has been administered. But just as, according to Luther, for the unbaptized baptism has only the power to forgive sins if it is accompanied with repentance and faith this also applies to the baptized. This means that even after baptism there is a need to repent of one’s sins and to ask God to forgive them, and consequently what you wrote in the blogpost “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer” is irrelevant in this respect.
Hello Patrick (re: #32)
Even if it is only venial sins, the forgiveness is still of the reatus culpa, not reatus poena. You’re still conflating the two.
Yes, sanctifying grace is still present in the penitent who is in a state of grace, but the forgiveness of venial sins is by the infusion of additional sanctifying grace.
That claim is mistaken. See above.
Not an equivocal difference, but an analogical difference.
That conclusion does not follow from those premises. From the fact that God alone can forgive sins, and that when God forgives us there are no sins left to be forgiven, it does not follow that “the forgiveness of sins must precede the spiritual transformation of a person.”
That’s because there is more to getting into heaven than being justified. Hence purgatory is needed for those who died justified but with remaining temporal debt.
Certainly.
That’s not the Catholic teaching on baptism. In Catholic doctrine baptism does not forgive any sins committed after baptism, or have the power to do so.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Saint Peter Damian, pray for us.
In comment 20 I pointed out that in my view the key difference between Protestants and the Catholic Church with respect to soteriology is whether or not God’s grace decreases after one first having received the forgiveness of sins. Now what was the teaching of Jesus and the apostles in this respect? Looking at Luke 17:3-4 and 1 John 1:9 it seems to me that their teaching agrees with that of the Protestants. As for the latter passage, which clearly refers to the forgiveness of sins experienced by Christians, it says that God as a result of one’s confessing one’s sins not only forgives one’s sins, but that he also purifies one from all unrighteousness. But if one is purified from all unrighteousness there is nothing in one’s life that deserves punishment. As for the former passage, when Jesus asks us to forgive our fellow men time and again unreservedly, one can certainly assume that God acts likewise.
Another passage which supports the Protesant position is 1 Thessalonians 4:15-17. This passage, which is about the Second Coming of Christ, shows that all Christians who at the time of this event are alive will immediately be in the presence of the Lord without having first to experience punishment for their venial sins.
Hello Patrick (re: #34)
Your argument in comment #20 was built on the false premise that in Catholic doctrine one receives less sanctifying grace in the sacrament of confession than in the sacrament of baptism, as though reatus poena is removed by sanctifying grace.
This argument presupposes that temporal debt must be included in the referenced purification from all unrighteousness. And that presupposition begs the question, i.e. presupposes the very point in question.
Yes God is more willing to forgive than we are, but that does not mean that God has no good reason to allow temporal debt to remain for post-baptismal sin. And for that reason your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise. Regarding God’s reason for allowing temporal debt to remain for post-baptismal sin, that is explained in the purgatory article linked in comment #33 above.
This is addressed in the response to Objection 3 in the purgatory article linked in comment #33 above.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Polycarp, pray for us.
Hello Bryan
Your explanations show that the Biblical evidence is compatible with the Catholic view concerning the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, but not that it clearly points to this view. The Protestant view is also compatible with the Biblical evidence. Now when we look at the patristic evidence, it seems to me that it points to the Protestant, and in particular Evangelical view rather than the Catholic one as the one held by Jesus and the apostles. What is interesting in this respect is the fact that in the early church there was no unamity concerning the question how to deal with post-baptismal sin. In the blogpost “Tradition I and Sola Fide” David Anders provides a good general account of the respective controversy:
“The greatest internal controversy over salvation in the early church dealt with the problem of post-baptismal sin. The earliest apologists taught a doctrine of Christian perfection that provided for the complete remission of sin in baptism, but that left little room for lapses thereafter. The practical challenges to this doctrine led shortly to allowing for but one instance of post-baptismal penance and absolution. Debate raged, however, about whether or not this penance could be allowed for any and all sins, or only for lesser faults. The most famous opponents in this debate were Tertullian and Pope Callistus (d. 223). The Pope held that absolution should be granted even to adulterers. This enraged the puritanical Tertullian, who eventually left the Catholic Church.”
Are we to assume that concerning the question how to deal with sins committed by Christians the apostles had no answer to it? But if they had a clear answer how can the fact that by the early third century this was not a settled issue be reconciled with the view that the Catholic Church has preserved the teaching of the apostles in its entirety?
In my view in the Apostolic era the common view was that a Christian could attain forgiveness of sins the same way as a non-Christian, namely by repentance and faith. But, as I assume, in the early second century, based on a false interpretation of John 3:5, the view that the means to attain forgiveness of sins is by repentance and faith was replaced by the view that repentance and faith were not sufficient to attain the forgiveness of sins, but that baptism was absolutely necessary in this respect. But as baptism can be administered only once, this doctrinal novelty posed the problem that there was no way to attain forgiveness of (grave) sins after baptism. The different views described above may have been attempts to deal with this problem.
Another problem that this doctrinal novelty posed was more of a theoretical nature. If baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, how could people who lived before the sacrament of baptism was established, in particular the Old Testament saints, be saved? Also with respect to a solution to this problem there was no unanimity in the early church. One solution was the assumption of a post-mortem baptism (Shepherd of Hermas, Epistula Apostolorum), another the view that before the establishment of the sacrament of baptism there was no need to get baptized in order to be saved but that faith was sufficient in this respect (Tertullian). However, the latter view leads to the assumption of two ways of salvation, one for the members of the Old Covenant and the other for the members of the New Covenant. But according to Romans 4 and Galatians 3:6-29 for all people there is only one way of salvation, namely by faith. This view is confirmed by the first letter of Clement, probably the first extant post-Apostolic Christian writing, written in the mid-90s of the first century. In 1Clem 32:4 its author points out that the Christians are saved in the same way as the Old Testament saints were, namely by faith. Concerning salvation no reference is made to baptism, neither with respect to the Old Testament saints nor with respect to the Christians.
Hello Patrick, (re: #36)
If you wish to dialogue here, you’ll at least need to acknowledge your mistakes. Otherwise, this isn’t good faith dialogue. In comments #31, #33, and #35 above I have pointed out multiple ways in which you confidently but grossly misrepresented Catholic doctrine. At no point yet have you acknowledged your error. Instead, you just move on. This typically indicates either intellectual dishonesty, or interest in debate rather than dialogue. Neither of those are acceptable here, given our forum rules.
I was not intending to make any biblical case for the Catholic position, but simply to show why your conclusion did not follow from Scripture. And a refutation of an argument should not be treated as a positive argument for the contrary position.
Of course not.
Questions are not arguments. First you would need to show that there is some incompatibility between the lack of unanimity regarding how to deal with post-baptismal sin, and the truth that the Catholic Church preserved the teaching of the Apostles in its entirety.
First, this is the ecclesial deism position, with all its untoward theological implications. Second, there is no evidence of some Church-wide controversy in which some Christians proposed the novelty that baptism is necessary for the forgiveness of sins, against the others who in fidelity to the Apostles claimed that baptism was not necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Third, from the beginning the moral consensus of the Church Fathers, and even an article of faith, is that there is one baptism for the forgiveness of sins. See my “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”
This question naturally arises even given that the Catholic doctrine of baptism is the Apostolic doctrine of baptism. The question therefore does not show that the Catholic doctrine of baptism is a novelty or departs from the received Apostolic deposit.
Of course they are both by faith, and both through Christ, but baptism belongs uniquely to the New Covenant, and there is not only one covenant.
I’ve addressed the claim about justification by faith in St. Clement in the “St. Clement, bishop of Rome” section of my “Ligon Duncan’s “Did the Fathers Know the Gospel?” and in “St. Clement of Rome: Soteriology and Ecclesiology.” As for the conditions necessary for the argument from silence to carry evidential weight, see the section titled “b. Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight” under the “Preliminary Principles” section of our article titled “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply to Brandon Addison.”
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Polycarp, pray for us.
Hey Bryan,
I just was going through this forum, as I was interested in McGraths book. I was enjoying the dialogue between yourself and Patrick.
I was thoroughly stunned reading your comment in the last thread: “Questions are not arguments. First you would need to show that there is some incompatibility between the lack of unanimity regarding how to deal with post-baptismal sin, and the truth that the Catholic Church preserved the teaching of the Apostles in its entirety.”
This comment to me, displayed poor sportsmanship from a self-proclaimed philosophy professor.(I viewed your bio) To me this indicates: “either intellectual dishonesty, or interest in debate rather than dialogue.” Perhaps even an expression of the Will to Power as conjectured by Nietzsche. I’m pretty sure a philosophy professor would be familiar with Socrates method of Elenchus used to bring precision and further discussion into the exploration of truth. May we be judged by the sword we carry, in the heart of charity I hope you were ignorant of Ancient Greek philosophy. Yet in this case would not be a great interpreter of Christian tradition as it has deep roots and influence from such traditions.
Not trying to be disagreeable but I feel the need to point out you harmed my enjoyment of reading your arguments and conjectures in the pursuit theological truth.
To seeking the Lord may Grace and Peace be upon you!
– Dad
Hello “Dad Clash” (re: #38)
Here we request that commenters use their real names, unless doing so would risk their career or livelihood. We ask that because this is a site aimed at ecumenical dialogue, and using our real names makes us accountable for our words, by tying our reputations to what we say and how we say it. Transparency contributes to authentic dialogue; anonymity detracts from authentic dialogue.
As for your comment:
Before resorting to ad hominems about ignorance or egoistic motives on my part, I’m well aware of ancient Greek philosophy and the Socratic elenchus, but what I said in comment #37 is still true and right. Questions are not arguments, and cannot rightly be substituted for arguments. Of course there is a time and place for the Socratic elenchus, but the principle of charity requires that the person who wishes to play the role of Socrates in the elenchus first obtain the permission of the person on the receiving end of the elenchus. Nor is the Socratic elenchus a substitute for argument. Rather, the elenchus is used to gather evidence that must then be used in the premises of an argument. Only sophistry treats questions as formally sufficient for refutation of an opposing position, because the goal of sophistry is not to reach agreement in the truth by way of argumentation, but to score points — and questions can score points in debate. For more on the distinction between virtuous dialogue and debate see “Virtue and Dialogue: Ecumenism and the Heart.” In authentic ecumenical dialogue we do not make our interlocutor do our argumentative work for us. We each take on the responsibility to make the argument in support of our position, or to refute what we believe to be false. In authentic ecumenical dialogue questions are therefore for seeking answers, not used as substitutes for an argument, including an argument we don’t know how to make. And if we’re not yet in a position to make such arguments, our mode should be that of only asking questions until we’re ready to make such arguments, because we should not attack what we do not yet understand, on pain of motivated reasoning.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Saints Andrew Kim Taegon, Priest, and Paul Chong Hasang, and their Companions, pray for us.
The argument that a lack of unanimity among orthodox people regarding how to deal with post-baptismal sin or any other issue is incompatible with the view that the Catholic Church preserved the teaching of the apostles in its entirety can be presented as follows:
1) There is Apostolic teaching regarding X.
2) The Catholic Church has preserved the Apostolic teaching regarding X in its entirety.
3) The Apostolic teaching regarding X preserved by the Catholic Church has always been publicly available.
4) If 1), 2) and 3) are true, there should be no lack of unanimity among orthodox people with respect to X.
5) However, there is a lack of such unanimity.
6) Therefore the claim that the Catholic Church has preserved the Apostolic teaching in its entirety is false.
As for the lack of unanimity among orthodox people on how to deal with post-baptismal sin, the following excerpt from a book on the sacrament of penance, written by a Catholic scholar, is very informative:
“One must … keep in mind that in the history of this sacrament there has not been an organic development. One generation’s practice did not, at times, lead smoothly into the next generation’s practice. From the patristic period to the twentieth century, there have been several “official” positions of the church as regards the ritual of this sacrament. As we read and reread this history, we find many stages of “new beginnings” and “slow endings,” both in theory and in practice. In this regard, the history of the sacrament of penance differs considerably from the history of baptism and eucharist. In these latter two sacraments, the history has been far more organic and orthogenetic, whereas the history of the sacrament of penance is far more jagged and disconnected.”
Kenan B. Osborne, O. F. M., Reconciliation and Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology, Eugene, Oregon 2001, pp. 52-53.
Hello Patrick (re: #40)
Regarding your argument:
The problem with this argument is that premise (4) presupposes that there is no such thing as development of doctrine, because what is not yet developed and defined can be disputed among orthodox believers, even given the truth of (1), (2), and (3). And development of doctrine is itself part of the Apostolic teaching, according to the Catholic faith. See, for example, “The Commonitory of St. Vincent of Lérins. So by presupposing the falsehood of the development of doctrine this argument presupposes the falsehood of Catholicism. And in this way the argument begs the question, i.e. presupposes the point in question. If Catholicism is true, and thus if the development of doctrine is true, premise (4) is false, and the argument unsound.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
St. Padre Pio, pray for us.
Hello Bryan
From the quote I provided in my previous comment one can clearly see that the history of the sacrament of penance is not characterized by an organic development, but by ruptures. There is even strong evidence for the view that in the Apostolic age there was no ritual that could be seen as a starting point for the development of the sacrament of penance. In the New Testament we find no clear indication of such a ritual. Nowhere in the New Testament do we see apostles or disciples of apostles absolve Christians who have fallen into grave sins from their sins. What is more, not only is there in this respect absence of evidence, but there is even evidence of absence. Very informative in this respect is Acts 8:18-24: After Simon the Magician has committed a grave sin, the apostle Peter simply exhorts him, in order to receive forgiveness of his sin, to repent of his sin and to ask the Lord to forgive him.
This lack of evidence for such a ritual continues in the post-apostolic age, as can be seen from the following quote by the Catholic scholar Kenan B. Osborne, O. F. M.:
“The post-apostolic age up to Hermas (c. 140) provides no identifiable references to any ritualized practice of reconciliation. The Didache, Clement of Rome’s Letter to the Corinthians, the letter of Ignatius of Antioch, the writing of Polycarp of Smyrna, the Epistula Apostolorum, and the epistle of Barnabas offer nothing on the theme of the church’s ritualized penitential practice of that time.”
Kenan B. Osborne, O. F. M., Reconciliation and Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology, Eugene, Oregon 2001, p. 53.
Osborne then identifies Hermas as the first one to mention a ritualized practice of reconciliation, and says that Hermas may be the one who introduced this practice as a novelty, even though there is scholarly dispute over this view (pp. 52-53). However if it is correct we would clearly see a rupture in the history of the sacrament of penance.
According to Osborne, Hermas’ view prevailed for the next few centuries, but then came to an end by another rupture in the history of the sacrament of penance:
“These two ideas – (a) reconciliation can be received once and once only: and (b) this is to be done in a public way – characterize the entire penitential practice of the Mediterranean church, east and west, form mid-second century to the eleventh century. There is some debate on the origins and the meaning of the regulation that penitentia secunda can be received only once in a person’s lifetime. Perhaps Hermas is the author of this approach; perhaps it antedates him, but no matter what the result of this controversy might be, it is clear that the influence of Hermas’ writings affected the discipline of the church for centuries. In the west, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Pacian, Leo, and Gregory the Great, to name only a few, clearly attest to the unrepeatability of penance. In the east, the Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, echo this discipline of unrepeatability. Other eastern bishops and writers do not mention this discipline of a single penitentia secunda, but neither do they mention that penitentia secunda might be repeated. It is only through the influence of the Celtic approach to penance, in the early middle ages, that there is a change in this discipline.”
Kenan B. Osborne, O. F. M., Reconciliation and Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology, Eugene, Oregon 2001, p. 53.
Hello Patrick, (re: #42)
That’s not true. What one sees from the quotation is Osborne’s opinion that the sacrament of penance is not characterized by an organic development, but by ruptures. Your claim is based on an argument from authority (argumentum ad verecundiam). And in this case the authority is a liberal theologian. Missing from the picture is the work of other theologians who believe and argue that the Catholic Church’s present doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation is not an accretion or corruption of the Apostolic deposit, but an authentic development of that deposit. So this way of using authority is problematic because it is a cherry-picking form of motivated reasoning. It would be ad hoc as well if used simultaneously to support a hermeneutic of continuity on the question of the relation of Scripture to the Apostles. (See comment #111 under “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Church: A Reply to Brandon Addison.”)
You wrote:
Here you are making use of the argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio). But these uses of the argument from silence do not meet the necessary conditions for silence to carry evidential weight. On those conditions see II.B.1.b. “Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight” in “The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply to Brandon Addison.”
This too is a bad argument from silence. It presupposes falsely that if in Simon Magus’s case St. Peter did not make use of the sacrament of reconciliation, then this is evidence that there was no such sacrament. But that conclusion does not follow from that premise. If Simon Magus did not have contrition, it was right for St. Peter not to make use of the power to forgive sins (John 20:23) by absolving him.
Here Osborne’s argument is an argument from silence, which does not meet the conditions necessary for silence to carry evidential weight. Again, see the section of the article I provided above that addresses this.
Here in claiming that Hermas was the first to introduce the practice Osborne is building on the premise of his flawed argument from silence.
There is certainly “change in this discipline,” particularly regarding the repeatability of the sacrament. But change in the discipline is not rupture in the development of the doctrine, i.e. it is neither accretion nor corruption of the essence of what has been handed down from the Apostles concerning this sacrament. And there is no evidence that Hermas was the author of the Church’s doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation, or introduced an accretion or corruption to the Church’s doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Our Lady of Mercy, pray for us.
Hello Bryan
Hermas himself presents his view that there is for Christians a possibility to repent and receive forgiveness for one’s sin as a novelty, based on a divine relevation, delivered to him by an angel:
“And I said to him, “I should like to continue my questions.” “Speak on,” said he. And I said, “I heard, sir, some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins.” He said to me, “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity. Since, however, you inquire diligently into all things, I will point this also out to you, not as giving occasion for error to those who are to believe, or have lately believed, in the Lord. For those who have now believed, and those who are to believe, have not repentance for their sins; but they have remission of their previous sins. For to those who have been called before these days, the Lord has set repentance. For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once. But if he should sin frequently after this, and then repent, to such a man his repentance will be of no avail; for with difficulty will he live.” And I said, “Sir, I feel that life has come back to me in listening attentively to these commandments; for I know that I shall be saved, if in future I sin no more.” And he said, “You will be saved, you and all who keep these commandments.””
The Shepherd of Hermas, Book II, Commandment 4, Chapter 3
(Source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02012.htm)
According to Hermas, the orthodox view concerning forgiveness of one’s sins until the revelation he claims to have received is that the only way to receive such forgiveness is by means of baptism. This strongly supports the view that before there was no sacrament of penance, which is also supported by the fact that neither in the New Testament nor in the Patristic literature before The Shepherd of Hermas is such a sacrament mentioned. As for what Osborne wrote about the latter fact he simply states it as a fact, which it undeniably is, and does not draw any conclusions concerning the history of the sacrament of penance from this fact.
Patrick, (re: #44)
No, that’s your interpretation of what he actually he says. He says that “some teachers maintain that there is no other repentance” other than that of baptism. That’s fully compatible with there being an organic development in the Church’s understanding of the Apostolic deposit regarding these two sacraments, and the application of the sacrament of reconciliation to post-baptismal sin. He doesn’t say that forgiveness of post-baptismal sin is a “novelty.” Nor does he claim that this doctrine did not come from the Apostles. What he is saying is fully compatible with his being divinely aided in understanding that the apostolic deposit provided a means for the remission of post-baptismal sins.
He never says this, nor does anything he say entail this.
This again is a fallacious use of the argument from silence. Again, see II.B.1.b. “Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight” at the link given in comment #43 above, to see why certain conditions must be met for an argument from silence to carry evidential weight.
On early recognition of post-baptismal forgiveness see 2 Clement 8:1-3, and the Epistola Apostolorum. Note that the Didache says that Christians say the Our Father three times daily, and this daily prayer by the baptized for the forgiveness of our sins would make no sense if they believed there was no forgiveness of sins committed after baptism. (See my “Reformed Imputation and the Lord’s Prayer.”) This practice of penance for sins by baptized Christians can be seen also in St. Justin Martyr, 1 Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Epistle of Polycarp (i.e. reconciliation after excommunication), and Tertullian. That would make no sense at all if there was no forgiveness of post-baptismal sins. It was the heretics (Montanus and Novatus) who claimed that there was no forgiveness for mortal sins committed after baptism. But St. Ambrose and St. Chrysostom refuted them, as I pointed out here in 2010.
Finally, even if Hermas denied post-baptismal forgiveness, or claimed that this is what orthodox Christians believed, this would be compatible with the truth of Catholic teaching, because in the Catholic paradigm the apostolic tradition comes to us in the moral consensus of the Church fathers, not just in a single voice. Not only does the moral consensus of the fathers support the notion that there is forgiveness of post-baptismal sins, but it is compatible with there being dissenting voices even among the fathers. So to try to use one early source to refute Catholic teaching is to make use of a question-begging standard.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Our Lady of Mercy, pray for us.
Hello Bryan
According to the angel talking to Hermas what “some teachers” say concerning the way to attain forgiveness of one’s sins is “sound doctrine” and “is really the case”. But what these teachers say is that there is no forgiveness for (grave) sins apart from baptism. Now, this view clearly contradicts what the Catholic Church teaches today. However, if there is an organic development of a doctrine, the later stage of that doctrine cannot contradict an earlier stage of it.
The view that there is the possibility to attain forgiveness of (grave) sin after baptism is clearly presented as a new revelation from God, being delivered by the angel talking to Hermas. This is quite clear from the following words of the angel: “For to those who have been called before these days, the Lord has set repentance. For the Lord, knowing the heart, and foreknowing all things, knew the weakness of men and the manifold wiles of the devil, that he would inflict some evil on the servants of God, and would act wickedly towards them. The Lord, therefore, being merciful, has had mercy on the work of His hand, and has set repentance for them; and He has entrusted to me power over this repentance. And therefore I say to you, that if any one is tempted by the devil, and sins after that great and holy calling in which the Lord has called His people to everlasting life, he has opportunity to repent but once.”
I am not suggesting that the lack of a reference to the sacrament of penance in the New Testament and in early Patristic literature as such proves that there was no such sacrament. It is only together with the witness of Hermas concerning the novelty of the possibility of forgiveness of (grave) sin after baptism that the silence in these writings gains some evidential weight.
As for your examples of early recognition of post-baptismal forgiveness, only those that were expressed before the publication of The Shepherd of Hermas (around 140 AD) are relevant. So, in this respect Justin Martyr and Tertullian can be ignored. The same may also apply to Epistula Apostolorum, since some scholar date this writing into the second half of the second century. Furthermore, when talking about the forgiveness of sins after baptism the issue was about the forgiveness of grave sins, such as apostasy, murder, and adultery. So, when the writings you mention are not about this kind of sins, they are also irrelevant in this connection. Finally, Osborne is not talking about the lack of any reference to forgiveness of post-baptismal sins in early Patristic literature in general, but about the lack of any reference to a ritualized practice of reconciliation. Now, assuming that he has done his homework, we can certainly be confident that what he writes concerning this issue is correct.
Hermas is not a single, dissenting voice, but, as Osborne points out in the second quote in comment 42, his view actually represents a wide consensus among the Church fathers. As for the view that there is no forgiveness for mortal sins committed after baptism, expressed by people like Montanus, Hippolyte of Rome, or Novatian, it actually represents the view that the angel mentioned in The Shepherd of Hermas called “sound doctrine”. Those that held this view could argue that theirs was the traditional view, whereas those who followed The Shepherd of Hermas in this respect were those that had accepted a doctrinal novelty.
Hello Patrick, (re: #46)
You wrote:
This argument too is unsound, as an argument against the Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation. Even if some of what some teachers said concerning the way to attain forgiveness of sins was “sound doctrine,” it does not follow that all that they said about forgiveness of sins was “sound doctrine,” or that what they said about the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins characterized what had been received from the Apostles. Therefore from what they said about the forgiveness of postbaptismal sin, it does not follow that the development in the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation was inauthentic or a corruption of what had been received from the Apostles.
Nothing in this paragraph entails that prior to this revelation to Hermas there was no forgiveness for grave post-baptismal sins. Hermas could be speaking of a local / temporal context, not of the universal Church, and the limitations on repentance for such sins could be at the level of the grace by which one seeks repentance, so as to avoid presumption, and/or a limitation on the finite temporal means to complete penance for such sins, not a limitation on the Church’s power to absolve such sins.
Again, for reasons I’ve explained in the comments above, this is a fallacious use of the argument from silence. See II.B.1.b. “Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight” at the link given in comment #43 above.
I do not accept that mere assertion as true. To understand why, read the article at the second link in comment #43 above.
Do you yourself affirm the distinction between mortal and venial sins?
I also do not accept this mere assertion as true. I think they are relevant on principle, because they pertain to the question of whether in the gospel received from the Apostles there was forgiveness for post-baptismal sin. And the answer to that question provides a principle regarding whether there is forgiveness of grave sins committed after baptism, and thus is relevant for determining the authenticity of development regarding such forgiveness.
I agree. And for reasons I’ve already explained, regarding the argument from silence, that lack of reference is not evidence that the development of the Catholic Church’s doctrine of the sacrament of reconciliation was not an authentic development of doctrine.
I do not accept this mere assertion as true. I think the number of historically extant witnesses prior to and/or contemporaneous with AD 140 about the question of the forgiveness of grave sin committed after baptism is not sufficient to substantiate or justify a claim about a “wide consensus among the Church fathers” on this question.
I don’t accept this mere assertion as true.
So do yourself believe that there is no forgiveness for grave sins committed after baptism?
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Hello Bryan
You wrote: “Even if some of what some teachers said concerning the way to attain forgiveness of sins was “sound doctrine,” it does not follow that all that they said about forgiveness of sins was “sound doctrine,” or that what they said about the forgiveness of post-baptismal sins characterized what had been received from the Apostles.”
What the angel calls “sound doctrine” clearly refers to the view “that there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins” and to nothing else.
You wrote: “Nothing in this paragraph entails that prior to this revelation to Hermas there was no forgiveness for grave post-baptismal sins. Hermas could be speaking of a local / temporal context, not of the universal Church, and the limitations on repentance for such sins could be at the level of the grace by which one seeks repentance, so as to avoid presumption, and/or a limitation on the finite temporal means to complete penance for such sins, not a limitation on the Church’s power to absolve such sins.”
If the view that “there is no other repentance than that which takes place, when we descended into the water and received remission of our former sins” is true, then baptism has always been the only way to receive forgiveness for grave sins.
You wrote: “Do you yourself affirm the distinction between mortal and venial sins?”
No, I don’t affirm this distinction. I don’t see in what way whether or not I affirm this distinction is relevant here.
You wrote: “I also do not accept this mere assertion as true. I think they are relevant on principle, because they pertain to the question of whether in the gospel received from the Apostles there was forgiveness for post-baptismal sin. And the answer to that question provides a principle regarding whether there is forgiveness of grave sins committed after baptism, and thus is relevant for determining the authenticity of development regarding such forgiveness.”
From the fact that after baptism there is the possibility of forgiveness of venial sins, it does not follow that there is also after baptism the possibility of forgiveness of mortal sins. Passages such as Hebrews 6:4-6 and 1 John 5:16-17 could serve as prooftexts for the view that after baptism there is no possibility of forgiveness of mortal sins.
You wrote: “I do not accept this mere assertion as true. I think the number of historically extant witnesses prior to and/or contemporaneous with AD 140 about the question of the forgiveness of grave sin committed after baptism is not sufficient to substantiate or justify a claim about a “wide consensus among the Church fathers” on this question.“
The phrase “wide consensus among the Church fathers” refers to the fact that Church fathers and other theological heavyweights such as Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Pacian, Pope Leo, and Pope Gregory the Great followed Hermas in his view concerning penance. Consequently, Hermas’ respective view can be seen as representing a wide consensus among the Church fathers.
That the view of people such as Montanus, Hippolyte of Rome, or Novatian concerning the possibility of attain forgiveness of post-baptismal sins is exactly the one expressed by the angel in The Shepherd of Hermas is not a mere assertion, but is evident to me from the excerpt from this work I quoted above.
You wrote: “So do yourself believe that there is no forgiveness for grave sins committed after baptism?”
No, I don’t. In comment 36 I point out that in my view this belief is not Apostolic and how it may have come about.
Hello Patrick (re: #48)
You wrote:
We must understand the angel’s words not as we wish or want, to further our own argument against the Church, but only as the angel qualifies them, namely, that it is sound doctrine in this sense: “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity.”
It is relevant because if you reject the mortal / venial distinction, and are granting that the early (first and second century) Church affirmed the forgiveness of post-baptismal venial sins as you seem to do in comment #46, and are asserting that the first and second century Church denied the possibility of the forgiveness of mortal sins, then your own position would suffer from all the untoward implications of ecclesial deism. I pointed you to the relevant link in comment #37 above.
That’s true from the point of view of formal logic. But what you need, to disprove the truth of what I said in comment #41, is more than the claim that the possibility of the forgiveness of mortal sins committed after baptism does not follow logically from the possibility of the forgiveness of venial sins after baptism, because the truth of what I said in comment #41 is fully compatible with this.
The proof-texting method presupposes the very point in question, as I’ve explained here.
I do not accept the mere assertion [that the people you cite here “followed” Hermas in his view concerning penance] as true. In my opinion these people were following what was handed down from the Apostles regarding the Church’s power to forgive sins. And the Church’s understanding of and practices concerning the use of this power developed over time by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In order to argue that both Hermas and these other figures represent a “rupture” and not an organic development of the Apostolic doctrine regarding the forgiveness of sins, you need more than mere assertions.
It being evident to you does not make it not a mere assertion. What would make it not a mere assertion is for the assertion to be the conclusion of an argument with premises, as you provided in comment #40.
I agree that it is not Apostolic. Where we differ is that from the Catholic perspective the Church has never taught, nor at any time in Church history has the consensus of Church Fathers held, that there is no forgiveness of mortal sins committed after baptism.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
Hello Bryan
You wrote: “We must understand the angel’s words not as we wish or want, to further our own argument against the Church, but only as the angel qualifies them, namely, that it is sound doctrine in this sense: “That was sound doctrine which you heard; for that is really the case. For he who has received remission of his sins ought not to sin any more, but to live in purity.”“
My understanding of the passage has nothing to do with what I wish or want, but it simply seems to me the plain meaning of it.
You wrote: “It is relevant because if you reject the mortal / venial distinction, and are granting that the early (first and second century) Church affirmed the forgiveness of post-baptismal venial sins as you seem to do in comment #46, and are asserting that the first and second century Church denied the possibility of the forgiveness of mortal sins, then your own position would suffer from all the untoward implications of ecclesial deism. I pointed you to the relevant link in comment #37 above.“
As for the charge of “ecclesial deism”, in my view it is based on the fallacious assumption that if a person holds false theological beliefs God’s grace doesn’t work in this person’s life. Now, if this was true, the Catholic position would be that God’s grace would only work in perfectly orthodox members of the Catholic church. However, this is not what the Catholic Church teaches, as Vatican II affirms that God’s grace can also be present in people who are not members of the Catholic Church.
In the article about ecclesial deism you wrote: “If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.“
In my view this is a non sequitur. From the fact that a church gets the canon right it does not follow that it gets everything else right. The reason for this is very simple. It is much easier to get acquainted with and memorize the titles of 27 writings than to get acquainted with and memorize the correct interpretation of every single sentence in these writings, even if such interpretations were available, which definitely is not the case. Actually, it is safe to say that such a task is impossible. So, it is inevitable that with respect to a corpus of writings misinterpretations of various passages in these writings arise.
In the article about ecclesial deism you furthermore argue that if the concept of an invisible church was true, it would be conceptually impossible for the gates of Hades to prevail over the Church even if at some point in history there were no embodied believers. I don’t see why this is supposed to be the case. If there were no embodied believers in this world anymore, the Church, as I understand it, would in this world cease to exist, and such a state could indeed be described as the gates of Hades having prevaild over the Church.
You wrote: “That’s true from the point of view of formal logic. But what you need, to disprove the truth of what I said in comment #41, is more than the claim that the possibility of the forgiveness of mortal sins committed after baptism does not follow logically from the possibility of the forgiveness of venial sins after baptism, because the truth of what I said in comment #41 is fully compatible with this.“
In comment 41 you don’t say anything about the possibility of the forgivenss of mortal sins after baptism, so I don’t see what you are referring to. Apart from this, the issue is not whether or not the view that the Church has always provided means to receive forgiveness of mortal sins after baptism is true, but whether or not your argument for this view is sound, and in my view this is not the case.
You wrote: “The proof-texting method presupposes the very point in question, as I’ve explained here.“
My point is not that I believe that that there is no forgiveness of sins that the Catholic Church calls “mortal sins” and that I think that the passages I referred to prove this view, but that someone who holds such a view could find support for it in these passages.
You wrote: “I do not accept the mere assertion [that the people you cite here “followed” Hermas in his view concerning penance] as true. In my opinion these people were following what was handed down from the Apostles regarding the Church’s power to forgive sins. And the Church’s understanding of and practices concerning the use of this power developed over time by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. In order to argue that both Hermas and these other figures represent a “rupture” and not an organic development of the Apostolic doctrine regarding the forgiveness of sins, you need more than mere assertions.“
As can be seen from the qoute in comment 36 David Anders, like me, sees Hermas’ view concerning the possibility of the forgiveness of (grave) sins after baptism as a doctrinal novelty. But even if I and David Anders are wrong and you are right, and Hermas’ respective view was that of the Apostles there is still the problem that Hermas’ view is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches today, which means that the Catholic Church has deviated from the respective Apostolic teaching.
You wrote: “It being evident to you does not make it not a mere assertion. What would make it not a mere assertion is for the assertion to be the conclusion of an argument with premises, as you provided in comment #40.“
As pointed out above, my interpretation of this passage seems to me the only possible one.
You wrote: “I agree that it is not Apostolic. Where we differ is that from the Catholic perspective the Church has never taught, nor at any time in Church history has the consensus of Church Fathers held, that there is no forgiveness of mortal sins committed after baptism.“
It seems to me that just as it was in the second century possible to accept or reject chiliasm and be regarded as orthodox, in this period this also applied to the acceptance and rejection of the view that there is a possibility attain forgiveness of sins after baptism. If the former is possible, why shouldn’t the latter be as well?
Hello Patrick (re: #50)
Herein lies in part the question-begging nature of your argument against the Catholic Church, given in comment #40 above. In the same way that using in one’s arguments against the Catholic Church interpretations of Scripture that presuppose the Protestant doctrine of perspicuity is question-begging, so using what seems plain to oneself in the interpretation of the Church Fathers is not a neutral methodology for constructing arguments against the Catholic Church to which they belonged. And given that an alternative and more congenial interpretation is available (which I provided in comment #49 in accord with the angel’s qualification), your argument (in #40) would need to show that yours is right and that the one I provided is false.
Nothing in the Ecclesial Deism article says or entails this. So, no, that’s not an accurate representation of the argument in that article.
That’s a straw man of the ecclesial deism argument. The argument you quoted from the Ecclesial Deism article is not from the fact that the Church got the canon right she must have gotten everything else right, but rather that if the Church as a whole erred in so many doctrines, then we have no basis for believing (i.e. it would be ad hoc to believe) that she was divinely protected from erring regarding the canon. That’s a completely different argument from your caricature.
If you want to discuss the argument in the Ecclesial Deism article, please do so in the thread under that article. This thread is for discussing McGrath’s change of mind regarding justification.
Nothing you have said after comment #41 falsifies what I said in #41 regarding your argument in #40. That’s the argument (i.e. the one in #40) under discussion.
I have not provided an argument for that thesis. Again, it is your argument (in #40) which is being evaluated here. Refutations of arguments need not be arguments for the contrary.
Sure, but that’s compatible with what I said in #41 being true.
The quotation from David Anders says nothing about Hermas. Nor does David see the forgiveness of grave sins after baptism as a “doctrinal novelty.” David’s position is compatible with what I said in comment #41 being true.
That conclusion does not follow from that premise, for the reason I already explained in the last paragraph of comment #45. And the truth of your premise (i.e. that Hermas’ view is contrary to what the Catholic Church teaches today, and not part of an authentic development) has not been demonstrated.
I provided another interpretation at the beginning of comment #49. So yours is not the only possible one.
Even if it were true that in this early period of the Church some Christians accepted and other Christians rejected the notion that there was forgiveness of grave post-baptismal sins, this would be compatible with the truth of what I said in comment #41, and with the truth of what I wrote in the last paragraph of comment #49.
I think this conversation has both run its course and deviated widely from the topic of the thread, so I’m bringing it to a close. May Christ bring us to the full and visible unity He prays for His disciples in John 17.
In the peace of Christ,
-Bryan
With respect, the second paragraph needs to be changed. There were many who believed that righteousness was not infused, yet they did not believe that the obedience of Jesus Christ was credited to them as righteousness. They simply believed that by faith in Jesus Christ their sin has been dealt with and they are therefore to be declared righteous. It is most clearly seen in Luke 18:9-14. The setting of the morning or evening sacrifice sees the tax collector literally say “Be the atoning sacrifice for me”. Jesus says he went down to his house justified. You have not reflected a large proportion of Protestants who believe this. There is no room for an infused righteousness in Luke 18 and no room for “double imputation”. Thank you
The shrill hair splitting and bad faith insinuations in this discussion makes one wish for a little more infused righteousness to be manifested.
Jack Mitchell, great call-out on Luke 18:9-14.
Words are used in contexts. What if a word in the New Testament had different meanings/nuances based on the context it appeared? It’s hard to believe how much division and derision different usage of words creates in the body of Christ. Ok, so different theologians have defined justification and sanctification and glorification differently. But is the substance of the effect of the gospel drastically different?
One person loads more of the cargo of gospel transformation into the word “justified”, one “sanctified”, one “saved”, one “glorified.” If seems the majority from all sides say something along these lines: God receives us sinners into his family apart from any claims within ourself, but on his own gracious initiative. He forgives us, empowers us by the Spirit, and transformed us into the likeness of Christ. On the final day Christ will judge the living and the dead according to their works: those who walked according to the Spirit fulfilling the law of the new covenant (summarized as faith working through love, by the Holy Spirit: love of God, love of neighbor). We can parse out which parts of this story are designated by the term “justification” but to say that one must pick a communion within Christianity based on ones definition of that word is just as silly for Catholics to say as it was for Protestants to say.