Oct
30
2009
How Evangelical Pastors Can Make Former Catholics Feel Welcome in Their Church
Chris Castaldo, the author of Holy Ground: Walking with Jesus as a Former Catholic, has a good article here on how to be sensitive and welcoming to those coming from a Catholic background.
90 Comments
How about making current Catholics feel welcome? I think that’s probably a better topic.
Well now, there’s a can of worms…
Typically churches do make current Catholic’s feel welcome, just as they would any apparent unbeliever.
“Apparent unbeliever.” ?? Do you mean to say that Catholics are unbelievers? Cause that would be a bad start to making them feel welcome.
Ummm lets see now; Idol worship, Pope thinks his word matters more than the Bible, OT style priesthood (as in stands between us and God), elevation of Mary, support for pagan rituals (see South America & Africa in particular) etc, etc
None of which is supported by Gods word and as such is not a good start either surely Barry?
I think your oversimplified grasp of Catholicism is laughable and sad. But beyond that, you address their doctrine before you address them as people; which is exactly the problem. Before you decide what you like or dislike about what they believe, decide if you like them. Before you create an agenda to change them, welcome them with love and friendship. I think you would ask the same from Catholics, right? Or do you only want to debate ideology and doctrine?
Catholics don’t have everything right, Glenn, but no one does. If we see it in that perspective, then our first and most important call is one of grace and love.
Barry,
The apostle Paul said that one error, the adding of works to the gospel, was sufficient to create a false gospel that doesn’t save. The “only thing” Paul wanted to know from the Galatians was how they received justification (Galatians 3:2). And Evangelicals and Catholics disagree about how justification is received. The difference between justification through faith alone and justification through faith and works is the difference between a true gospel and a false gospel. Catholics can be saved as individuals, but only in spite of their denomination’s false gospel. Catholics can be Christians as individuals, but Catholicism isn’t Christian by apostolic standards.
You write:
“Before you decide what you like or dislike about what they believe, decide if you like them. Before you create an agenda to change them, welcome them with love and friendship. I think you would ask the same from Catholics, right? Or do you only want to debate ideology and doctrine?”
Is that the approach Paul took to the Judaizers in Galatians? Elsewhere, Paul refers to false teachers who had “smooth and flattering speech” (Romans 16:18). Appearances can be deceiving. Saying what Paul said in Galatians might lead people to question whether you love them (Galatians 4:16), but true love rejoices in the truth (1 Corinthians 13:6).
You may be a Christian yourself, Barry. I don’t know. I think many Catholics are Christians. But I think it would be helpful for your to reconsider these issues in light of what I’ve outlined above, especially Galatians 3:2 and 4:16.
By the way, I realize that Barry may not be a Catholic. His comments don’t identify him either way. My comments above aren’t meant to identify him as a Catholic. I’m just writing with that possibility in view.
Is it so hard to love someone that you have to proof text from the bible to avoid talking about the real concrete issue? Christ told us what the two greatest commandments were. What is so bad about simply caring for another human being more than you care for their theology? Because all your comments tell me is that you care more for what they believe than you do for them.
And how arrogant to believe you have the true gospel. They believe the same thing! They probably have some of the same arguments you are using against them. I wonder if you have ever sat down and engaged in genuine dialogue with a Catholic. Wouldn’t you ask them to do the same for you?
Barry,
I am a former Roman Catholic. I was raised in the Church. I studied the Catechism and made it up to the third sacrament. I lit candles and prayed to the saints. I talked to Mary as though she were divine. My family had a family-priest, Father Griffith.
Barry, you have no clue what you are talking about. I am born-again. When I was, God opened my eyes to His Word, which stands in absolute antithesis to the basic foundations of the Roman Church. You should write my old friend Richard Bennet, a priest for over 25 years. He was born again too, and left the Church because he was made to see. He knows the ins-and-outs of the whole scheme better than most men. He is deeply involved in ACTUALLY evangelizing Roman Catholics. His website is here: ttp://www.bereanbeacon.org/
Don’t be duped.
Barry, Jason wasn’t saying that we aren’t to love Catholics. He was just saying we treat Catholics the same way we treat Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, that’s all.
The church I attend has a lot of former Catholics. Whatever the reason for their coming to the church, they just heard solid exposition of the Scripture and came to faith as a result. We shouldn’t treat Catholics any different than anyone else. We love and serve and give the gospel.
Since there are two objections that often come up when an Evangelical says that Catholicism isn’t Christian, I might as well answer those objections in anticipation. First I’ll sum them up, although, obviously, more could be said:
1. If Catholicism isn’t Christian, then there are significant implications for the modern world. A smaller percentage of the population would be considered Christian, Evangelicals would have fewer fellow Christians to work with on issues like abortion, Christians would seem more divisive to the non-Christian world and therefore would be less appealing to the world, etc.
2. Where was Christianity between the time of the apostles and the Reformation, then?
I’ll briefly address both objections and direct any interested readers to some relevant resources for more information:
1. Similar comments could have been made about the Judaizers. One of the primary charges that Celsus, a second-century critic of Christianity, brought against Christians was that they didn’t have enough unity. He not only didn’t think that the divisions between Christians and Judaizers were justifiable, but he even thought that it didn’t make sense for Christians to separate from Judaism. Our standards of unity shouldn’t be the world’s standards. Sometimes making ourselves more appealing to the world comes at too high a price. Yes, there are some negative consequences in the modern world if we conclude that Catholicism isn’t Christian. But there are negative consequences in the other direction as well, and those are worse over the long run.
2. There are some significant differences between Catholicism from Trent onward and Western Christianity prior to that time. See, for example, here, here, and here. It’s not as though every church in the West prior to the Reformation, much less every church in the world prior to that time, affirmed the theology of Trent as a statement of faith required of its members. And even if they did, one could argue that most likely some individuals were Christians in spite of that false gospel, much as I’ve argued with regard to modern Catholicism. The idea that we even need to trace such a succession of orthodoxy throughout church history is dubious. We don’t have any record of orthodoxy being maintained for some periods of Old Testament history. It’s not needed. But I do think that it’s probable that orthodox Christians existed in every generation of church history, and I think we have much evidence for it. See, for example, my links above.
Jason,
There is a difference between the Roman Church and the people who attend mass. The ecclesiastical body is considered to be the true membership of the church, not the attendees. It is the Magistracy that is the issue.
I would not deny fellowship to a Roman Catholic if they came to my church. As protestants, we are the true Catholics and should act as such.
You are right about Trent and the developments of the Church in history. God has always had His remnant — despite the inherent problems with Rome.
Barry wrote:
“What is so bad about simply caring for another human being more than you care for their theology?”
Their relationship with God is foundational to their well-being. I cited scripture to support my view. You aren’t interacting with what I said. That’s unloving.
You write:
“And how arrogant to believe you have the true gospel. They believe the same thing!”
And how arrogant to believe you have the true view on this issue we disagree about. I believe the same thing!
You write:
“I wonder if you have ever sat down and engaged in genuine dialogue with a Catholic.”
Yes, I have.
Jason,
Is it even possible, in your mind, that you have misinterpreted St. Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians? You are not making any distinction between the works of the ceremonial law as part of the Old Covenant, and works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul wasn’t condemning (or even referring to) growth in justification through good works done in a state of grace; he was condemning a return to the Old Covenant by Christians, because that was a rejection of the New Covenant and implicitly a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah who established the New Covenant in which the requirement of those ceremonial laws is done away. If you don’t understand the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law, then you have entirely misunderstood Paul’s point in his letter to the Galatians. Then your whole warrant for calling the Church’s teaching a “false gospel” is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross said:
“Is it even possible, in your mind, that you have misinterpreted St. Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians? You are not making any distinction between the works of the ceremonial law as part of the Old Covenant, and works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God.”
Me:
Such an interpretation is as old as Origen and has been dealt with by theologians across the centuries. In fact, the ‘New Perspective’ is not new at all. Here’s Augustine:
“Although, therefore, the apostle seems to reprove and correct those who were being persuaded to be circumcised, in such terms as to designate by the word “law” circumcision itself and other similar legal observances, which are now rejected as shadows of a future substance by Christians who yet hold what those shadows figuratively promised; he at the same time nevertheless would have it to be clearly understood that the law, by which he says no man is justified, lies not merely in those sacramental institutions which contained promissory figures, but also in those works by which whosoever has done them lives holily, and amongst which occurs this prohibition: “Thou shalt not covet.”… And must the other nine commandments, which are rightly observed in their literal form, not be regarded as belonging to the law of works by which none is justified, but to the law of faith whereby the just man lives? Who can possibly entertain so absurd an opinion as to suppose that “the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones,” is not said equally of all the ten commandments, but only of the solitary one touching the Sabbath-day?”
-Augustine, On the Spirit and the Letter, ch.23 and 24
S&S,
Claiming that the Catholic interpretation is [no older than] Origen begs the question, by presuming that it isn’t what St. Paul himself meant. And your response sets up a straw man of the Catholic position, as though Catholics understand “words of the Law” to mean *only* the ceremonial law. It is primarily the ceremonial works of the law St. Paul has in mind in his epistle (as is clear from various things he says there), but nevertheless it is true (for St. Paul) that even works of the Decalogue, done apart from grace, do not bring [initial] justification. And that’s St. Augustine’s point. St. Augustine says in that same treatise: “There [i.e. in the Old Testament] the Law was set forth in an outward fashion, that the ungodly might be afraid; here, [i.e. in the New Testament] it is given in an inward manner, that they may be justified.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, XVII [ch. 29]) In this way we see that St. Augustine’s position is fully compatible with Trent.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross said:
“Claiming that the Catholic interpretation is [no older than] Origen begs the question, by presuming that it isn’t what St. Paul himself meant.”
Me:
I was talking about Pauline *interpretation*, not whether Paul himself believed that.
Bryan Cross said:
“but nevertheless it is true (for St. Paul) that even works of the Decalogue, done apart from grace, do not bring [initial] justification.”
Me:
First, to set up a dichotomy between initial justification and continued justification is to set up a dichotomy that Paul never makes and is thus special pleading. Nevertheless, that interpretation won’t work either (e.g. Romans 4:6-8, 8:33-34, 9:11, 16, Galatians 3:3-5, 21, Hebrews 10:14, etc.).
Bryan,
If we read Galatians 3:22-23, Paul states:
“…the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed.”
How did the Law imprison everything (Both Jews and Gentiles) under sin, if the Law is composed merely of the ceremonial edicts given to the Jews?
It seems that the Apostle’s understanding of “works of Law” includes both moral and ceremonial commandments.
Barry and Jason, I think you guys should visit a pub together (or coffee shop, if you prefer) after you read my book. If you would forward me your mailing addresses (from my website- http://www.chriscastaldo.com) I’ll gladly send you free copies of Holy Ground. Cheers -CC
Well, since your book has a glowing endorsement from people like the apostate Frank Beckwith and J.I. Packer who betrayed the Gospel as a signer of the wicked, evil, and stupid “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” I would say that very little, if any, of it is based upon the Word of God. Oh, and I already ordered it from Amazon to add to my multi-thousand volume library on romanism.
Despite the ignornace and unscriptural nonsense I see presented here, I for one praise the True and Living God that today I can remember with deep gratitude that great work of the Holy Spirit known as the Protestnat Reformation. God used his servants like Martin Luther and John Calvin to clense the church of more than a millennium’s worth of theological garbage that Rome had accumulated. Back then, God’s people saw the evil and idolatry of Rome, and were willing to spend their life’s blood opposing that tool of Satan.
Were that so many “evangelicals” today for faithful to the Word of God!!
Bryan Cross wrote:
“Is it even possible, in your mind, that you have misinterpreted St. Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians?”
Yes, it’s possible that I’m wrong. These are matters or probability. But the way to convince me that I’m wrong isn’t to ignore what I wrote above, ask me if I’m aware of the possibility that I’m wrong, then go on to make a series of unsupported assertions about your own view.
In Galatians 3:2, which I cited above, Paul only mentions faith, not faith combined with “works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God”. His references to the works of the law would most naturally be taken as references to all of the works of the law, not just particular ones, like those that are ceremonial. He tells us that there isn’t any law of works by which people are justified (Galatians 3:21-25), and he uses Abraham in Genesis 15:6 as an illustration. All that Abraham does there is believe (sola fide). Not only are ceremonial works absent from that passage, but so is every other type of work.
Galatians 5:6, which you seem to have in mind, is about life “in Christ”, which isn’t necessarily about how one gets into Christ to begin with. And if you want the reference to “working” in that passage to be taken as a reference to faith manifesting itself in the form of the works you refer to, then you’ll have to argue for that position, not just assert it. Faith can be said to work in more than one sense. It can be said to work to bring us nearer to God, for example, without any implication that works such as giving money to the poor are involved. If I say that the peace of God works to make me more like Christ, for example, it doesn’t therefore follow that the peace in question is manifesting itself in the form of attending church, participating in the eucharist, giving money to the poor, etc. Furthermore, even if we assume that Paul is referring to love manifesting itself in such works, the fact that such manifestations of love are what “mean anything” (Paul’s phrase) doesn’t tell us that they’re the means by which we attain justification. If Paul is addressing the Christian life in general, then you can’t assume that everything he says in that context is about how to attain justification. Galatians 5:6 is too vague to carry the weight people often try to place on it.
Jason,
I agree with most everything you say in your previous comment. My point is simply that you have not demonstrated that the Catholic doctrine on justification is a “false gospel.” You have asserted it to be so, by asserting the truth of your own interpretation of Galatians, without demonstrating that the Catholic way of understanding Galatians is the wrong interpretation of that epistle. I do not agree that these are “matters of probability”, but even if they were matters of probability, if you want to show that the Catholic Church teaches a false gospel, and that we should follow your interpretation of Galatians over that of the Catholic Church having the succession from the Apostles, then the evidence for your interpretation over the Catholic interpretation had better make the probability that you are right absolutely overwhelming, such as 99 percent for your position to less than 1 percent for that of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, there is not sufficient warrant for risking the sin of schism. So far, I’m not seeing a 99 percent to 1 percent case. I’m not even seeing a 50-50 case.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross,
Historical judgments are probability judgments. We’re trying to discern what historical individuals, such as Jesus and Paul, said. We can say that it’s probable that the text of Galatians is such-and-such and that the meaning of the text is such-and-such. Are you claiming to have more than probability? If so, on what basis? If not, then you apparently misunderstood what I was saying.
I didn’t just assert my view of Galatians. I argued for it. And my view contradicts the Catholic view. I also explained why I disagree with your view. You’re not interacting with what I said.
Your assertions about what probability my arguments would need to have should be demonstrated, not just asserted. Appealing to apostolic succession, and assuming that your view of that subject is correct, isn’t enough to establish your demand for an “absolutely overwhelming” probability.
Jason,
I would agree with you on most, if not all, you’ve said here. However, additionally, I think that the Roman Catholic understanding of the Eucharist presents an enormous, if not implacable, barrier to true fellowship between the two communions.
I would like to hear your thoughts on this, and whether or not you think it is a bigger problem than even the ongoing dispute over the Reformation solas.
Blessings in Christ,
Pilgrimsarbour
New guy here.
I think its important to separate justification by faith from obedience to God’s moral law.
Paul is clear in Galatians 5:16-24 (and other places) that certain sins cut us off from the grace of Christ, just as belief in ceremonial works does likewise, for they are seeking to be justified by the Law (Galatians 5:4).
Paul says that the Law is not for the righteous, but for the wicked, and it is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8-11). I understand this to mean that the law is useful in pointing out sin, but it is through “faith” or “trust” in Christ that one overcomes sin. I’m deeply troubled when a Protestant says that they believe in salvation by faith alone and yet neglect that Paul said the following:
We are to obey, we are to work out our salvation with fear and trembling and hold fast to the word of life. This is an active faith, not a passive belief. Christians can lose their salvation if they partake in passivity.
(I’m not Roman Catholic, BTW. I consider myself 1) proto-Catholic or 2) proto-catholic, by which I mean 1) before Roman Catholicsm or 2) the first catholics [those who held to authentic apostolic doctrine, measured by the creed, and not the garbage that popped up later]. But neither am I wholly Protestant either.)
Tom wrote: “ignornace” . . . what great poetic justice
Great insight Dan. I see that you have reached the limits of your intellectual capabilities.
Gabriel said: “He was just saying we treat Catholics the same way we treat Jehovah Witnesses and Mormons, that’s all.”
I have in the past thought of Catholicism as being within Christianity because they would seem to affirm the gospel, whereas Jehovas and Mormons more clearly deny the gospel. I have been wrestling with how to view Catholics. I have a hard time saying Catholic theology is the same as what the Jehovas and Mormons insomuch as it would be excluded from the circle of Christianity.
I think someone can have true saving faith and still go to a Catholic church. I am not sure that someone with a true saving faith would still attend a Jehovas Witness Hall, or a Mormon church. Thoughts anyone?
Rome’s teachings have NOTHING in common with the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as taught in Scripture. And, yes, it is excluded from “the circle of Christianity.”
Rome officially denied the Gospel at the Council of Trent. It put a curse on those who believed the Word of God instead of Papal lies. Until such times as Rome publicly repents for its lies and heresies, by Scriptural standards it is a synagogue of Satan and Gateway to Hell.
Nevertheless, I have met Catholics who certainly appear to have a saving faith. I am not convinced that believing works are involved in justification versus believing they are a necessary result of justification precludes someone from a saving faith. I have met Catholics who would affirm the gospel, with the issue of justification being the major dividing point.
Of course, that is total and utter nonsense. If Rome does not have the true and Biblical doctrine of justification, then it does not the Gospel. Any Roman Catholic who does have an actual saving faith does so inspite of, not becuase of, Rome; and does so in opposition to their doctrines. They are, in fact, NOT Roman Catholic, even if they do profess on being so. And any Romanist whom God does choose to save has an obligation before the Lord to renounce their Romish idolatry and join a true Biblical church.
Pilgrimsarbour,
The Catholic view of the eucharist is problematic in multiple contexts, including justification. I haven’t studied that subject as much as I’ve studied some others related to Catholicism, though, so I don’t address it as often. We have some articles on the eucharist at Triablogue, if you’re interested and want to search the archives there.
Dan wrote:
“I have in the past thought of Catholicism as being within Christianity because they would seem to affirm the gospel, whereas Jehovas and Mormons more clearly deny the gospel. I have been wrestling with how to view Catholics. I have a hard time saying Catholic theology is the same as what the Jehovas and Mormons insomuch as it would be excluded from the circle of Christianity.”
There are multiple foundational issues in Christianity. Justification through faith alone is one among others. Overall, Catholicism is much closer to the truth than the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons. Catholicism has more of a negative influence in a sense, because of its larger size, for example, but that larger size also means that Catholicism has more of an influence in areas where it’s correct. A lot of good has been done by and through Catholics and the institution of the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals agree with Catholics on the large majority of issues.
But the same is true of the earliest Christians and the Judaizers. I think the best approach to take is to acknowledge the many and significant good things done by and through Catholics and Catholicism, and acknowledge the many and significant advantages Catholicism has over groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, while also acknowledging that there are some significant problems with Catholicism, including at the foundational level. We can say that multiple groups are wrong on one or more foundational issues without saying that they’re equally wrong.
One might make the argument that many RCs that lived before Trent managed to be good Christians IN SPITE of their church – but that after the Reformation had truly begun, those still accepting the Tridentine doctrines were from thereon “sinning against the light.” They could no longer plead ignorance, and they had other churches to choose from.
In a common historicist interpretation of Revelation 2-3, the “church of Thyatira” is seen as the prophetic representative of the medieval church. This church has many sincerely good-doing members, who however are tolerating the corrupt “Jezebel” in their midst. This could refer to provincial RCs who mean and also do mostly good, but are yet showing rustic naivete, unwarranted trust towards the Vatican that is steadily corrupting the whole church with its influence.
John Calvin, in his commentary on 1 Corinthians 3 passage (that Romanists usually cite in favor of their purgatory-doctrine) showed a pretty gracious attitude towards medieval Christians and their deficiencies:
“He himself will be saved, etc. It is certain that Paul speaks of those who, while always retaining the foundations, mix hay with gold, stubble with silver, and wood with precious stones — that is, those who build upon Christ, but in consequence of the weakness of the flesh, admit something that is man’s, or through ignorance turn aside to some extent from the strict purity of God’s word. Such were many of the saints, Cyprian, Ambrose, Augustine, and the like. Add to these, if you choose, from those of later times, Gregory and Bernard, and others of that stamp, who, while they had it as their object to build upon Christ, did nevertheless often deviate from the right system of building. Such persons, Paul says, could be saved, but on this condition — if the Lord wiped away their ignorance, and purged them from all dross.
This is the meaning of the clause so as by fire. He means, therefore, to intimate, that he does not take away from them the hope of salvation, provided they willingly submit to the loss of their labor, and are purged by the mercy of God, as gold is refined in the furnace. Farther, although God sometimes purges his own people by afflictions, yet here by the name of fire, I understand the touchstone of the Spirit, by which the Lord corrects and removes the ignorance of his people, by which they were for a time held captive. I am aware, indeed, that, many refer this to the cross, 184 but I am confident that my interpretation will please all that are of sound judgment.”
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/calvin/cc39/cc39009.htm
And to make my position clearer: any Romanist who believes in this declaration made by Boniface VIII in 1302 believes in false gospel just as surely as the Judaizers condemned by Paul:
“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
A very passionate debate here. Is it not possible to draw a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholic people?
My issue is with the RCC and the gospel she proclaims. We have some Roman Catholics in our church, who have by God’s grace understood the gospel (and that righteousness in inputed not infused).
My approach to Roman Catholic people is the same in one sense but different in another.
It is the same in that:
1. As a person they are loved by God, made in God’s image so they should be loved.
2. As person they are sinful by nature, having inherited this from Adam just as everyone else n the planet is. So their biggest problem is not their church but their sin. So they need to hear about Jesus (just like everyone else)
It is different in that:
1. The gospel message should be contextualised so that the RC does not filter the message through their theological grid.
2. I think that there is a diversity among RC’s regarding what they believe. The RCC’s official view I will strongly protest against, but not all RC’s believe what Rome tells them to. In fact in my experience the majority of RC’s are RC’s by birth, not conviction and when asked don’t really know what they believe. When confronted with the gospel often respond by saying “no thanks I am a Catholic.”
Just a few thoughts…
I want to add some points to my comments above in response to Bryan Cross. It’s true that part of Paul’s opposition to the Judaizers would stem from their denial that Christ fulfilled some elements of the Jewish law that are no longer applicable. But Paul opposes them for other reasons as well. As he often tells us in his letters, works are excluded so that justification would be by grace. The law is to lead us to faith. It’s not as though replacing one system of works with another system of works, even a system in which God graciously helps us, would make eternal life free and would lead us to faith as the means of justification. Lowering the price of something doesn’t make it free. Under Catholicism, we still have to work for justification. And, in Catholicism, the law doesn’t lead us to faith. Rather, it leads us to a combination between faith and works God graciously (according to Catholicism) empowers us to do. As I said above, Genesis 15:6 isn’t an illustration of the Catholic gospel. It’s an illustration of an Evangelical view of the gospel. If you want to know what type of works we do to attain justification before God, read Genesis 15:6. The gospel of Catholicism avoids some of the errors of the Judaizers, but not their most significant error. As passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 illustrate, Paul wanted works of every type excluded. He wanted a gracious, free, and substitutionary gospel in a much higher sense than Catholicism offers.
It’s also worth noting that the errors of the Catholic view of justification would be highly significant even if we were to conclude that Catholicism isn’t under the anathema of Galatians. Removing that anathema from Catholicism would lessen the significance of Catholicism’s errors, but it wouldn’t eliminate that significance. The differences between an Evangelical and a Catholic view of justification don’t have to involve the anathema of Galatians in order to be highly significant. Those who maintain that the anathema doesn’t apply to Catholicism still ought to be very much opposed to the Catholic view of justification. There’s far too much ecumenism today, even if we don’t apply the anathema of Galatians to Catholicism.
Jason,
I would like to discuss this, but my previous comment is apparently still hung up in the filter, so it will have to wait.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Jason,
You point out that for St. Paul, “works are excluded so that justification would be by grace.” That’s true if we are talking about (1) [non-meritorious] works done apart from grace, and (2) [initial] justification. But if we are talking about growth in justification by way of works done in grace, then works need not be excluded. I agree that the law is to lead us to faith, but you seem to assume that this is its only function. Jesus Himself says, referring to the law: “Do this and you will live.” (Luke 10:28) St. Paul likewise says, “for not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law will be justified.” (Rom 2:13) We see that the law does not only have the function of leading us to faith.
You claim that the “under Catholicism, we still have to work for justification.” But that statement oversimplifies. A baby being baptized does not need to work for his initial justification. Adults may need to prepare themselves for baptism, but these preparations are not meritorious. So when describing the Catholic doctrine of justification you need to distinguish between initial justification and growth in justification, and between non-meritorious works done prior to being in a state of grace, and those done in grace and agape.
You claim that “in Catholicism, the law doesn’t lead us to faith.” But that’s not an accurate statement concerning the Catholic position. In Catholic theology the law does lead us to faith. If the law leads us to A+B, then it leads us to A. Denying that is like saying that if the law leads us to faith and love, then the law doesn’t lead us to love. Or if the law leads us to faith + heaven, then the law does not lead us to faith.
I don’t know why you think Gen 15:6 isn’t an illustration of the Catholic gospel. Catholics affirm it entirely. We *are* justified by living faith (which this was in Abraham), and that justification is increased through our good works done in grace and agape. Nothing about that verse contradicts anything in Catholic doctrine.
You claim that “passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 illustrate [that] Paul wanted works of every type excluded.” But the texts don’t demand that interpretation. Grace is a free gift. If we merited initial grace, we could boast. (That’s the semi-Pelagian error.) But that shouldn’t be interpreted as ruling out the ability to store up a righteous reward in heaven for good works done here: “every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.” (1 Cor 3:8), and “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to each man according to what he has done.” (Rev 22:12) The reward for our good works is based on the law, not on some arbitrary standard God just makes up on the Day of Judgment. So grace and law and reward are not mutually exclusive in an unqualified sense, only in in a restricted sense.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross wrote:
“You point out that for St. Paul, ‘works are excluded so that justification would be by grace.’ That’s true if we are talking about (1) [non-meritorious] works done apart from grace, and (2) [initial] justification.”
I’ve explained why that approach is wrong. You aren’t arguing for your view. You’re only asserting it. Again, when a passage like Galatians 3:2 mentions faith, the burden of proof is on the shoulders of anybody who wants to claim that more than faith is involved. There’s no mention of baptism, giving money to the poor, or any other work allegedly done by grace. Assuming that such works are meant to be included is an assumption, not an argument. Paul goes on to cite Abraham in Genesis 15:6 as an illustration. That passage involves no works of any type. The reason why Paul asks the Galatians about how their Christian life began (Galatians 3:2) is because you can’t begin by faith, then finish by means of a combination between faith and works (Galatians 3:3) as far as justification is concerned. The exclusion of works goes beyond what you call initial justification.
The Catholic view involves beginning with a combination of faith and baptism, followed by a system of faith and works prescribed by the Roman Catholic hierarchy immediately thereafter. The faith alone of Genesis 15:6 never leads to justification in normative Catholic soteriology. (Exceptions are made for some people, such as those who die prior to baptism.) What you have to argue, therefore, is that we attain justification by means of a combination between faith and baptism, then, immediately afterward, we must do a lifetime of works prescribed by the Catholic hierarchy in order to maintain and increase that justification. That’s not what Paul argues in Galatians 3. Rather, the Christian life begins with faith alone, as illustrated by Genesis 15:6, and that initial attaining of justification reflects an exclusion of works thereafter as well (Galatians 3:3). When Paul discusses works that are excluded, he repeatedly goes beyond the Jewish law (Romans 3:27, 4:4, Galatians 3:21-25) and cites faith as the alternative. The alternative isn’t a Catholic system of faith and works that God’s grace enables us to do. Rather, the alternative is faith. The mere fact that the Catholic system includes faith doesn’t give you warrant to assume that Catholic works are meant to be included whenever faith is mentioned.
You write:
“Jesus Himself says, referring to the law: ‘Do this and you will live.’ (Luke 10:28) St. Paul likewise says, ‘for not the hearers of the law are just before God but the doers of the law will be justified.’ (Rom 2:13) We see that the law does not only have the function of leading us to faith.”
As Paul explains in Romans 3:9-24 and Galatians 3:10-25, nobody lives up to that standard.
You write:
“You claim that ‘in Catholicism, the law doesn’t lead us to faith.’ But that’s not an accurate statement concerning the Catholic position. In Catholic theology the law does lead us to faith. If the law leads us to A+B, then it leads us to A.”
I wasn’t denying that Catholicism includes faith. The point is that it includes more than faith. But Paul doesn’t. If the Jewish law was meant to lead us to a system of faith combined with the many works prescribed by the Catholic hierarchy, then why would Paul refer to such a system as “faith”? That’s far from the most natural meaning of the text. I’m taking “faith” to mean faith. You’re taking it to mean faith and the Catholic system of works. That’s a possible reading, but not the more likely of the two. People don’t normally refer to something like Catholicism’s system of faith and works as “faith”.
You write:
“I don’t know why you think Gen 15:6 isn’t an illustration of the Catholic gospel. Catholics affirm it entirely. We *are* justified by living faith (which this was in Abraham), and that justification is increased through our good works done in grace and agape.”
What does Abraham do in Genesis 15:6 other than believe? The Catholic view of justification has faith accompanied by baptism at the start and a lifelong system of other works thereafter. Arguing that Abraham’s faith was the type that would lead to works isn’t a sufficient response. Catholicism doesn’t teach that we’re justified when we have such a faith. Rather, baptism and (later) other works have to accompany such faith in order for justification to occur. That’s not what we see in Genesis 15:6.
You write:
“But that shouldn’t be interpreted as ruling out the ability to store up a righteous reward in heaven for good works done here: ‘every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.’ (1 Cor 3:8), and ‘Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to each man according to what he has done.’ (Rev 22:12) The reward for our good works is based on the law, not on some arbitrary standard God just makes up on the Day of Judgment.”
I don’t deny that works are rewarded. They aren’t the means of justification, though (1 Corinthians 3:15).
What you’re arguing is that Paul is only excluding some works, not all works, and that the alternative he proposes is a system of faith and works prescribed by the Catholic hierarchy. But Paul’s language in passages like Romans 3 and Galatians 3 doesn’t place such a limit on the works excluded, his paradigm case of Abraham in Genesis 15:6 doesn’t involve such a limit, and the alternative to works that he describes is faith, not faith combined with the Catholic system of works. Paul repeatedly describes how people were justified (Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14) or how he expected justification to normally occur (Acts 19:2). People are justified when they believe, not when a work resulting from that faith is later combined with the faith. If works have to be so excluded at the beginning, it makes little sense to argue that justification would be maintained and increased through works just afterward. What Catholicism is doing is replacing a Jewish system of justification through faith and works with a less difficult system of justification through faith and works. Paul is replacing all such systems with faith.
Jason,
You wrote, “Catholicism doesn’t teach that we’re justified when we have such a faith.” That’s simply not true. In Catholic doctrine we are justified when we have such faith. Next you wrote, “Rather, baptism and (later) other works have to accompany such faith in order for justification to occur.” Again, that’s not true. If what you were saying were true, then every catechumen who died prior to his baptism would be damned. But the Church has never believed that. A person who claims to have faith, and knows that Jesus Christ has established baptism as the sacrament of faith through which we are born again, and yet refuses to be baptized, does not have faith. But faith comes *through* the sacrament of baptism, even when the reception of faith precedes the reception of the sacrament of baptism.
In your focus on distinguishing faith and works, you are leaving out agape, which is the key to understanding how the two (faith and works) are related. Some of your other comments show that the source of the disagreement is much deeper than differing interpretations of Scripture; we’re operating in entirely different paradigms. Unfortunately, I don’t have time right now to continue to work out our paradigm differences. My intention in commenting was simply to point out that you have most certainly not demonstrated that the Catholic Church teaches a “false gospel”.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross wrote:
“If what you were saying were true, then every catechumen who died prior to his baptism would be damned. But the Church has never believed that. A person who claims to have faith, and knows that Jesus Christ has established baptism as the sacrament of faith through which we are born again, and yet refuses to be baptized, does not have faith. But faith comes *through* the sacrament of baptism, even when the reception of faith precedes the reception of the sacrament of baptism.”
I said, earlier in this discussion, that I was addressing the normative means of justification in Catholicism. Catechumens who die prior to baptism, a category I mentioned as an exception before you mentioned them, are an exception, not representatives of what’s normative.
Your assertion that faith comes through baptism is a claim you don’t support, and it’s one that’s contradicted by the evidence. Nobody in the Biblical era is described as having faith, yet needing to wait until baptism to have that faith enhanced in some manner and thereby attain justification. Rather, people are justified as soon as they come to faith, and every instance in which it’s narrated for us occurs prior to baptism (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). Even in the unusual context of Acts 19:1-6, the people in question receive the Spirit at the time of the laying on of hands, not at the time of baptism, and Paul’s question in verse 2 suggests that he considered it normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism. To dismiss one of these passages as an exception to the rule would be unreasonable. To dismiss all of them as exceptions would be even more unreasonable. Some of the passages occur in contexts that are treated as normative (Acts 11 and Acts 15 treat the method of receiving justification in Acts 10 as normal; it’s doubtful that all of the Galatians and Ephesians to whom Paul was writing were exceptions to a rule; etc.). And even the passages that aren’t described as normative can’t be dismissed as exceptions unless we have evidence to that effect. And we don’t.
Furthermore, asserting that these passages are including baptism when they mention faith, or are assuming baptism without mentioning it, would also be an insufficient argument. We don’t normally assume that the term faith includes baptism, and some of the relevant contexts can’t reasonably include such a ceremony. There wouldn’t have been a baptism in the Jewish temple in Luke 18. The people in Acts 10 are described as being baptized after receiving the Spirit through faith. Etc. Even in a passage like Galatians 3 or Ephesians 1, where reading baptism into the passage would be less unreasonable, it’s still unreasonable to do so. Not only is baptism not mentioned (despite being mentioned explicitly in so many other contexts), but Paul even tells us that these people were justified at the time when they heard the message and believed. He’s referring to the preaching of the gospel, and to interpret that as a reference to people being baptized as they hear the preaching would make little sense. Rather, the image Paul presents us with is reminiscent of what we see in Acts 10 and elsewhere in Acts, where people believe a preached message prior to baptism. Those who hear the preached word in Acts and accept it are said to believe, even though they haven’t yet been baptized (15:7-9). Baptism is sometimes mentioned, but it’s distinguished from faith (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8). It’s not just assumed that any mention of faith includes baptism.
Baptism does unite us to Christ. But so do other activities that occur after the attaining of justification (Romans 13:14, 2 Corinthians 4:10-11, Philippians 3:10-12).
It seems difficult to simply dismiss individual RC’s from their church’s official teachings. Don’t all member have to go through RCIA classes before joining?
I’m not saying there are not individuals who do not agree with the official RCC teaching, but how much disagreement can be because of ignorance? If it is not ignorance, why stay?
[Bryan Cross] “Jason, Is it even possible, in your mind, that you have misinterpreted St. Paul’s words in his letter to the Galatians?”
Since that objection cuts both ways, it’s self-refuting. We can all entertain the hypothetical possibility of error. However, that, of itself, doesn’t create any presumption of error. And it’s clear that Bryan is very one-sided in his skepticism. Jason ought to be skeptical about his evangelical interpretation of Galatians, but Bryan ought not be skeptical about his Catholic interpretation of Galatians. Jason should doubt his evangelical faith, but Bryan’s Catholic faith is indubitable.
“You are not making any distinction between the works of the ceremonial law as part of the Old Covenant, and works of the moral law, done in a state of grace in the New Covenant, out of love [agape] for God. In his letter to the Galatians, St. Paul wasn’t condemning (or even referring to) growth in justification through good works done in a state of grace; he was condemning a return to the Old Covenant by Christians, because that was a rejection of the New Covenant and implicitly a rejection of Jesus as the Messiah who established the New Covenant in which the requirement of those ceremonial laws is done away. If you don’t understand the distinction between the ceremonial law and the moral law, then you have entirely misunderstood Paul’s point in his letter to the Galatians. Then your whole warrant for calling the Church’s teaching a ‘false gospel’ is based on a misinterpretation of Scripture.”
Actually, it’s far more likely that Bryan has “entirely misunderstood” Paul’s point in Galatians. As Gordon Fee explains, in his exegesis of Gal 3:10-12,
“Paul thereby moves from the blessing of Abraham in Genesis (vv7-9) to the curses of Deut 27-28 on those who do not obey the law (vv10-13). He does so by citing the final, summarizing curse in Deut 27:26–as it appears in the LXX, but with some verbal modifications from 29:19-20: ‘Cursed is anyone who does not abide in all the things written in the book of the law, to do them.’ Paul has chosen his citation carefully, as the addition from Deut 29:20 and the citation of Lev 18:5 in v12 make certain. At issue for Paul is the Judaizer’s selectivity with regard to the law…Paul’s point is that those who choose to live by the law thereby exclude themselves from the blessing, because they must now ‘abide in the whole law, to do it,’ and they are cursed if they do not so ‘abide.’ What Paul is thus setting out to demonstrate is the total incompatibility of living on the basis of faith while also trying to live on the basis of doing the law…First, if the Galatian men allow themselves to be circumcised, they are making a choice ‘to live by the law’; and because people must ‘abide in [continue to live in] everything written in the law,’ they are thereby excluding themselves from living by the Spirit, based on faith in Christ Jesus. What the Galatians must recognize is that these two ways of living are mutually exclusive; one lives one way (by faith) or the other (by law); and to live by the other (the law) only partially is to be under a curse. Therefore, second, they cannot be partial in their obedience: to choose to live by the law means of necessity to live by the whole law; partial obedience (just circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath observance) is not permissible. So this too is part of the curse; it is either no law or the whole law. Third, to abide in the law carries with it the necessity of ‘doing the law,’ which automatically means that one is not trusting Christ for salvation. The logical consequence of all this is that the one who chooses to live by the law is thereby excluded from Christ, cut off from salvation altogether; and this is the real concern for Paul in all of this argumentation…Paul’s’ Gentile converts in Galatia cannot pick and choose what they will obey from the law. Rather, to go the way of the Torah is to go the whole way; there is no provision for partial obedience. Here, then, is the paragraph that puts all of this in its starkest form…His point now is, and it is the crucial point in the entire argument with the Galatians, that one cannot add ‘works of law’ to faith as a basis of ‘living’ before God. To the contrary, the law itself is quite plain on this matter…The ‘logic’ is thus certain and forceful, and Paul’s point is clear: You Galatians cannot have it both ways; it is an either/or situation. One either comes to life, and continues to live, on the basis of faith, or one is condemned to living by the law and that alone, and that quite excludes living by faith. To make this mean something else theologically is not only to do injustice to what Paul actually says, but takes the argument out of Paul’s’ context in order to make it fit another concern altogether,” Galatians (Deo Publishing 2007), 117-21.
Ironically and unwittingly, Bryan is siding with the Judaizers.
[Bryan Cross] “You claim that ‘passages like Romans 3:27 and Galatians 3:21-25 illustrate [that] Paul wanted works of every type excluded.’ But the texts don’t demand that interpretation.”
Well, according to the Catholic NT scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, commenting on the follow-up verse (3:28):
“[Paul’s] emphasis falls on pistei, ‘by faith,’ as Kuss, Bardenhewer ,andSickenberger recognize. That emphasis and the qualification ‘apart from deeds of (the law)’ show that in this context Paul means ‘by faith alone,’” Romans (Doubleday 1993), 364.
Steve,
You’re conflating initial justification and growth in justification. The claim Jason made about Rom 3:27 and Gal 3:21-25 is that those passages exclude every type of work of the law from justification in any sense. My contention was that they do not exclude works of the law from growth in justification or from final justification. Fitzmeyer’s comment, whether true or not, is fully compatible with works being excluded from initial justification, and yet not excluded from growth in justification or from final justification.
And Fee gets St. Paul wrong in the quotation you cited, because he doesn’t understand that it is through agape that we fulfill the whole law, as Jeremiah foretold (Jer 31:33) and St. Paul teaches in Rom 2:29. This is precisely why to break one point of the law is to break the whole law (James 2:10), because by doing so one has abandoned agape. And by contrast, to retain agape is to fulfill the whole law, as St. Paul teaches. (Gal 5:14) Fee presents us with an either/or [all the OT law, or faith alone]. But that’s not St. Paul’s either/or. St. Paul’s either/or is Old Covenant or New Covenant. With regard to the moral law and faith, in Christ they are both/and, by the supernatural gift of agape. The law is not abolished in the New Covenant; it is written on the hearts of men by the Spirit.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
[Bryan Cross] “But that shouldn’t be interpreted as ruling out the ability to store up a righteous reward in heaven for good works done here: ‘every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor.’ (1 Cor 3:8), and ‘Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to each man according to what he has done.’ (Rev 22:12) The reward for our good works is based on the law, not on some arbitrary standard God just makes up on the Day of Judgment.”
Two problems:
i) As a point of exegetical method, it’s methodologically erroneous to use John to gloss Paul. The usage of each author needs to be construed on its own terms. After we’ve established what each writer meant, we can then proceed to systematic theology.
But until you interpret each writer on his own terms, it’s circular to assume that two different authors are even talking about the same thing. You need to exegete each writer on his own terms to know what he’s talking about in the first place before you’re in any position to relate what he says to what another author says.
ii) The fact that Scripture has a doctrine of heavenly rewards doesn’t mean that good works are justificatory (in the Pauline sense). Bryan is assuming the very conclusion which he needs to prove.
[Bryan Cross] “Steve, You’re conflating initial justification and growth in justification.”
Bryan, you’re interpolating a distinction between initial justification and final justification without first having established the existence of said subdivision in the text. You need to demonstrate through suitable exegesis that Paul conceived of justification as gradual process with different stages.
“Fitzmeyer’s comment, whether true or not, is fully compatible with works being excluded from initial justification, and yet not excluded from growth in justification or from final justification.”
Compatible under the tendentious assumptions that (a) justification is phased in over time, and (b) works contribute to final justification. You keep assuming what you need to prove.
“And Fee gets St. Paul wrong in the quotation you cited, because he doesn’t understand that it is through agape that we fulfill the whole law, as Jeremiah foretold (Jer 31:33) and St. Paul teaches in Rom 2:29.”
Which doesn’t establish that law-keeping is justificatory. You constantly anticipate your conclusion–minus the supporting argument.
“This is precisely why to break one point of the law is to break the whole law (James 2:10), because by doing so one has abandoned agape.”
It’s fallacious to use James to gloss Paul. To begin with, that prejudges the meaning of James. In addition, unless you already know what Paul means, you don’t know whether the two statements are even conceptually related.
“And by contrast, to retain agape is to fulfill the whole law, as St. Paul teaches. (Gal 5:14) Fee presents us with an either/or [all the OT law, or faith alone]. But that’s not St. Paul’s either/or. St. Paul’s either/or is Old Covenant or New Covenant.”
Several problems;
i) Gal 5:14, with its appeal to Lev 19:18, accentuates the continuity between the old covenant and the new at this juncture. That’s not either/or.
ii) Moreover, it’s in the context of the new covenant that Paul accentuates the inadmissibility of law-keeping as a basis of justification before God. So that’s not a contrast between the old covenant and the new. Rather, that’s a contrast within the new covenant itself.
iii) Do you think law-keeping was justificatory under the old covenant? Were Jews saved by works while Christians are saved by grace?
“With regard to the moral law and faith, in Christ they are both/and, by the supernatural gift of agape. The law is not abolished in the New Covenant; it is written on the hearts of men by the Spirit.”
The internalization of the law doesn’t mean the law is justificatory. You keep presuming the very thing you need to demonstrate. Is that because you’re reading everything through a Catholic lens–which superimposes Catholic concepts onto the text? Unfortunately, your conclusions are etched on your lens rather than your prooftext. Remove the lens and the conclusion disappears.
JT’s endorsement of this article is causing me pause. Contextualize to the RC’s? Big mistake. Take them on head on. Love them, but attack ALL of that false teaching that leads to destruction. Satan is the head of that religion. Do not be deceived.
Bob, the article is addressed to former Catholics, not Catholics.
Yet the article is titled “Catholics Welcomed Here”
One reason not to judge an article by its title is that they are often not written by the author.
Yes, this is one of those instances. Evidently my proposed title wasn’t snappy enough.
Re: works/works of the law: Steve is right. Exegetically, the idea that “works” in particular can be limited to part of the law simply can’t be maintained, though it’s been tried for centuries.
For a good article, see this survey by Doug Moo from several years ago:
http://www.djmoo.com/articles/lawandlegalism.pdf
The clearest place where Paul defines what he means by erga (works) is Rom. 9:11, where he explains that it’s a very general term for him: it’s doing, either “good or bad.”
Insane.
“What must I do to be saved?”
How does Jesus answer that question EVERY time? EVERY time it involves, at some level “doing.”
And Protestants just dance around Jesus’ own words in this and in every other aspect of Christian life.
Protestantism is largely gnosticism. Really, it is. You guys are in a constant state of mystery and conflict as to what the “real” gospel is, what “true” Christianity is.
What kind of dreadful God you believe in who does not make it clear.
Jesus – apostles – Church. Continuous line via East and West to this day.
Ellen,
You aren’t interacting with any of the arguments cited by the Protestants in this thread, and you aren’t offering any documentation for your claims. The question that opens your post is reminiscent of Acts 16:30, and one of Jesus’ apostles, Paul, gives a Protestant answer to that question (Acts 16:31). As Paul explains later, he expects people to receive the Holy Spirit when they believe (Acts 19:2), not at some later point when works are added. Jesus Himself repeatedly refers to people as forgiven when they believe, not when works are later added to their faith (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, John 6:40, etc.). The Pharisee of Luke 18:10-14 attributed his good works to God (thanking God for his righteous status), but it was the tax collector who threw himself entirely on God’s mercy (not partly on God’s mercy and partly on works God empowered him to do) who was justified.
Jesus also tells us that the redeemed behave righteously, but you don’t harmonize all of these passages by making works a means of justification. That method of harmonization fails to harmonize. It contradicts the passages that refer to justification through faith alone, the freeness of eternal life, the substitutionary nature of justification, etc. A Protestant view of justification, involving justification through a faith that later results in works, best harmonizes all of the data.
“A Protestant view of justification, involving justification through a faith that later results in works, best harmonizes all of the data.”
Well, some us actually believe that it does not “harmonize the data” as well as you think, if you mean by “harmonize the data” a theory that best accounts for the data of scripture (including the teachings of Jesus), requires fewer ad hoc hypotheses, and best accounts for the development of the practices and beliefs of the ante-nicean and post-nicean church. After all, the first readers of Scripture should be accorded great deference since it is in their communities that canon developed and was eventually recognized, its parts recited and read in their liturgical practices, and they were the closest to the Apostles and their immediate successors (including Ignatius and Polycarp).
To do a word study on the word “work,” for example, as if that can ever settle this sort of question is lexical gnosticism, reminiscent of the sort of exoteric/esoteric reading of classical texts found among the followers of Leo Strauss in political philosophy. People write in sentences, embedded in paragraphs of which letters and books are composed.
Having said that, there is no doubt in my mind that the Reformed view of justification has explanatory power. It has an elegance to it that I can see why many fine minds find it attractive. But, remember, for those of us who are many generations removed from the founders of that theology, we are reading the text with those background beliefs firmly in place, situated in the center of a well-regarded theological tradition with some of wonderful Christian thinkers who advocate for it. On the other hand, there are other people, such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Richard John Neuhaus, Avery Cardinal Dulles, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Robert Louis Wilken, and R. R. Reno, who have found the Reformed account less plausible than the Catholic one. After all, these gentlemen, after careful study and reflection, though it no longer possible to embrace the Reformed view in good conscience. Are they irrational? They may be wrong, of course (though I don’t think they are). But that does not mean that they did not do their Christian best in assessing this question, or that they violated any rule of epistemic virtue. What then do you suggest they should have done?
So, if neither view is the obvious deliverance of reason, then it seems that you need more than just theoretical fitness and explanatory power to say with real confidence that the Catholic view is not an acceptable Christian alternative to the Reformed account. Now there could be other overriding concerns that push one to the Reformed view. For example, suppose you think the Catholic view of justification is neither better nor worse than the Reformed view, but you can’t for the life of you find any good reason to accept other Catholic views such as those of apostolic succession or the role of Mary in devotional life. Fair enough. But turn about is fair play. Suppose a Catholic were to say to you: You know, I actually think that Calvin’s arguments on justification are better than Aquinas’, though I think that Aquinas makes a plausible case. So, it seems to me that, all things being equal, Calvin’s arguments are stronger, though I can see why someone would reject Calvin and accept Aquinas. However, there are other aspects of Catholic theology–apostolic succession, Eucharistic realism, the importance of avoiding the sin of schism, its ancient patrimony, etc.–that tip the scales for me in favor of Catholicism. So, I choose to remain (or become) a Catholic.
Here’s my point: in these sorts of disputes, there’s never going to be one knock-down drag-out argument or piece of evidence on which everything turns. The cases are going to cumulative, or, in the words of Cardinal Newman, “a convergence of independent probabilities.” Moreover, some people are going to come to the theological table with a different plausibility structure than others, and this is why some of us find some arguments and reasons better than others. Here’s an example: suppose someone, after reading the New Testament, concludes that it is difficult to prove any one view of the Eucharist as correct. But suppose they accept Luther’s view that Aristotle’s metaphysics is of the devil (though I’m not sure he said it in those words) and thinks he has good reason to believe the Catholic view of Eucharistic realism (the view that the bread and wine really become the body and blood of Christ at consecration) depends on Aristotelean categories (though I do not believe that is in fact the case, given the Eastern Church’s absence of Aristoteleanism even though it accepts Eucharistic realism). Suppose, also, that the person has been a life-long member of a Baptist Church that has a wonderful pastor and loving and charitable Christians who live out the words of Christ. These people, who he knows and trusts, teach him that the proper way to look at the Lord’s Supper is that it is symbolic. This person’s plausibility structure (or “evidential set”) will make it difficult for him to accept the Catholic position, even if one can make a church history argument for it. So, this person is going assess counter-arguments from Catholics and Orthodox partly on the resources of his plausibility structure.
Is this person “irrational”? Hardly, even though I think he is wrong.
Francis Beckwith wrote:
“After all, the first readers of Scripture should be accorded great deference since it is in their communities that canon developed and was eventually recognized, its parts recited and read in their liturgical practices, and they were the closest to the Apostles and their immediate successors (including Ignatius and Polycarp).”
Yes, post-apostolic Christians are relevant. So are apostolic contemporaries and post-apostolic sources who weren’t Christians (Josephus, for example). Most of these relevant extra-Biblical sources are Christians, but it bears mentioning that non-Christian sources provide us with some relevant data as well. Many early non-Christian sources corroborate what the Christian sources are saying, give us information about the Jewish context of early Christianity, etc. On the issue of the canon, which you mentioned, the early non-Christian sources are highly significant.
The extra-Biblical sources are more helpful to Catholicism than the Bible is. But even the extra-Biblical sources are very problematic for Catholicism. See here.
You write:
“To do a word study on the word ‘work,’ for example, as if that can ever settle this sort of question is lexical gnosticism, reminiscent of the sort of exoteric/esoteric reading of classical texts found among the followers of Leo Strauss in political philosophy. People write in sentences, embedded in paragraphs of which letters and books are composed.”
My arguments in this thread, Steve Hays’ arguments, and Justin Taylor’s arguments don’t isolate the term “work” from its context. The article by Douglas Moo, to which Justin linked, doesn’t ignore the context either.
You write:
“After all, these gentlemen, after careful study and reflection, though it no longer possible to embrace the Reformed view in good conscience. Are they irrational? They may be wrong, of course (though I don’t think they are). But that does not mean that they did not do their Christian best in assessing this question, or that they violated any rule of epistemic virtue.”
The concept of attaining justification through works (or partially through works) is a popular concept among humans in general. And such a view makes sense of many portions of scripture. As you know, what Evangelicals are arguing is that justification through faith alone makes more sense of the entirety of scripture and the entirety of all of the data (Biblical and extra-Biblical). I wouldn’t deny that there’s some merit to the other side. What you’re saying of “these gentlemen” could also be said of people who disagree over whether Jesus is the Messiah, whether He was raised from the dead, whether the Catholic Church is the church He founded, etc. Even if somebody who denies Jesus’ resurrection, for example, is well-educated and has many outward signs of sincerity, I think you’d agree with me that he’s significantly wrong and is responsible for that error. People often have a mixture of highly commendable and highly deplorable traits. We don’t have to be able to objectively demonstrate why a person significantly erred in order to conclude that he significantly erred.
You write:
“Here’s my point: in these sorts of disputes, there’s never going to be one knock-down drag-out argument or piece of evidence on which everything turns. The cases are going to cumulative, or, in the words of Cardinal Newman, ‘a convergence of independent probabilities.’ Moreover, some people are going to come to the theological table with a different plausibility structure than others, and this is why some of us find some arguments and reasons better than others.”
I agree.
Dr. Beckwith — I’ll defer to Jason and some of the others to respond to your arguments, but as a cradle Catholic who struggled for a half a lifetime to come to grips with what that organization really is, I have to say that you need to be scolded, at a moral level, for the evil that you have done. Your publicly-trumpeted return to Rome was a hugely foolish mistake is doing great harm to the true church of Christ — that church of all the elect.
In holding to Roman views of “The Church,” you have lent your name and prestige to the “ghost of the Roman empire” which has succeeded historically not because it is the “one true Church” (nor does “the Church that Christ founded “subsist” in the Roman Catholic church), but because early popes were willing to kill to strengthen and maintain their own office; to put into place, for centuries, an inquisition, that brutalized people to the Roman way of thinking; to collect and burn books (and people) of those who would challenge its authority by defending the truth. And as you know, it places its own authority in an equal position with the Word of God. And you have made yourself a part of that great evil.
[Francis Beckwith] “Well, some us actually believe that it does not ‘harmonize the data’ as well as you think, if you mean by ‘harmonize the data’ a theory that best accounts for the data of scripture (including the teachings of Jesus), requires fewer ad hoc hypotheses, and best accounts for the development of the practices and beliefs of the ante-nicean and post-nicean church. After all, the first readers of Scripture should be accorded great deference since it is in their communities that canon developed and was eventually recognized, its parts recited and read in their liturgical practices, and they were the closest to the Apostles and their immediate successors (including Ignatius and Polycarp).”
i) Is Beckwith telling us that Roman Catholicism has ad hoc hypotheses, but fewer ad hoc hypotheses than Protestantism?
ii) Notice the slippage as he goes straight from the “first readers of Scripture” through the subapostolic fathers and ante-nicean fathers to the post-nicean fathers–as if all these different generations enjoy the same privileged epistemic situation. But that’s’ clearly not the case. Consider a court of law. If you subpoenaed a witness to offer testimony on the state of the NT church, would you subpoena Papias or John Chrysostom? Clearly Papias. No court of law would summon a “witness” who lived centuries after the fact. That would be hearsay evidence many many many times removed from the event in question.
iii) There are other obvious distinctions. While an eyewitness may well know more about an event he saw than somebody living 100 years after the event, it’s possible for a historian living 500 years after the event to know more about the event than somebody living 100 years after the event. That’s because the historian may consult more sources of information. Likewise, a modern Egyptologist knows more about ancient Egypt than St. Anselm, even though Anselm was born hundreds of before the Egyptologist.
iv) And we also know from reading the NT epistles that it was quite possible for contemporaries of the apostles who sat at their feet to misconstrue apostolic teaching. That’s why Paul is forced to write a follow-up letter to correct their misunderstanding. And that’s despite the fact that he also taught them face-to-face.
v) Finally, does the church of Rome consistently defer to the church fathers? Or does the church of Rome pick and choose which patristic teachings to follow?
Who was closer to NT times: Marcion (c. 85-160) or Gregory the Great (c. 540-604)? Does this mean, using Beckwith’s chronological yardstick, that Marcion takes precedence over Gregory the Great? Does that represent Catholic priorities? I don’t think so.
“To do a word study on the word ‘work,’ for example, as if that can ever settle this sort of question is lexical gnosticism, reminiscent of the sort of exoteric/esoteric reading of classical texts found among the followers of Leo Strauss in political philosophy. People write in sentences, embedded in paragraphs of which letters and books are composed.”
Of course, that’s just a straw man argument.
“But, remember, for those of us who are many generations removed from the founders of that theology, we are reading the text with those background beliefs firmly in place, situated in the center of a well-regarded theological tradition with some of wonderful Christian thinkers who advocate for it…some people are going to come to the theological table with a different plausibility structure than others, and this is why some of us find some arguments and reasons better than others…Suppose, also, that the person has been a life-long member of a Baptist Church that has a wonderful pastor and loving and charitable Christians who live out the words of Christ. These people, who he knows and trusts, teach him that the proper way to look at the Lord’s Supper is that it is symbolic. This person’s plausibility structure (or ‘evidential set’) will make it difficult for him to accept the Catholic position, even if one can make a church history argument for it. So, this person is going assess counter-arguments from Catholics and Orthodox partly on the resources of his plausibility structure.”
i) Of course, the problem with this objection is that it cuts both ways. A cradle Catholic will have a Catholic plausibility structure or evidential set. So that objection either proves too much or too little.
ii) Moreover, it’s misleading to suggest that Catholic exegetes arrive at Catholic conclusions while Protestant exegetes arrive at Protestant conclusion. If you actually read modern Catholic exegetes (e.g. Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer; John Meier, Luke Timothy Johnson), they frequently challenge traditional Catholic interpretations of Scripture and offer more “Protestant” interpretations in their place.
iii) And as far as church history is concerned, let’s remember that Protestants can be church historians, too. Protestant church historians are also “deep into church history.” They know the same primary and secondary source materials as Catholic theologians.
“On the other hand, there are other people, such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Richard John Neuhaus, Avery Cardinal Dulles, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Robert Louis Wilken, and R. R. Reno, who have found the Reformed account less plausible than the Catholic one.”
Sure you want to use Newman to prove your point? As a recent historical monograph has documented, “it was events in Newman’s life that changed his interpretation of the Fathers, not the interpretation of the Fathers that caused Newman to change his life. King argues that Newman tailored his reading, ‘trying on’ the ideas of different Fathers to fit his own needs.”
Cf. B. King, Newman and the Alexandrian Fathers (OUP 2009).
Continuing with Beckwith:
“After all, these gentlemen, after careful study and reflection, though it no longer possible to embrace the Reformed view in good conscience. Are they irrational?”
But, of course, that’s misleading. Beckwith isn’t vying for epistemic parity between Catholicism and Protestantism. He doesn’t content himself with the even-handed notion that both sides are rational. Rather, Beckwith is vying for the superiority of Catholicism.
“However, there are other aspects of Catholic theology–apostolic succession, Eucharistic realism, the importance of avoiding the sin of schism, its ancient patrimony, etc.–that tip the scales for me in favor of Catholicism.”
i) That’s a makeweight. Unable to justify your Catholic interpretation of Scripture on exegetical grounds, you leverage your Catholic interpretation by lobbing a kitchen sink of extraneous considerations at the text. But how does that ascertain the meaning of the Bible writer? Do we simply vacate the meaning of Scripture if it comes into conflict with extrascriptural precommitments?
ii) And, of course, it’s not as if astute Protestants never evaluated the “other aspects” of Catholic theology.
[Francis Beckwith] “On the other hand, there are other people, such as Scott Hahn, Jimmy Akin, Richard John Neuhaus, Avery Cardinal Dulles, John Henry Cardinal Newman, Robert Louis Wilken, and R. R. Reno, who have found the Reformed account less plausible than the Catholic one.”
i) I’m unclear on why Beckwith is casting the debate in terms of Calvinism v. Catholicism (since “Reformed” is synonymous with “Calvinist”). Belief in sola fide is hardly limited to Calvinism.
ii) Of the names he ticked off, Newman and Dulles are clearly the most distinguished of the lot. I’ve already commented on Newman. So what about Dulles? Well, let’s take a few test-cases, shall we?
a) Consider his articles on the topic of salvation and damnation: “The Population of Hell,” “Who Can Be Saved?” (both of which are available online). On a related note is his article on the Jewish question: “The Covenant With Israel” (also available online).
As he rummages through church history, notice how he traces out the checked history of this central issue in Catholic theology. Notice the sea-change in Catholic theology.
On a different topic, but illustrating the same theological instability, consider his article on “Catholicism & Capital Punishment” (available online).
b) Then we have his article “From Ratzinger to Benedict” (available online).
On the one hand, it documents the way in which Karol Wojtyła and Joseph Ratzinger arrive at divergent interpretations of Vatican II. This despite the fact that both men were participants at the council, worked side by side for a quarter century, and ascended the papacy (one right after the other.
On the other hand, it also documents the divergence between early Ratzinger’s interpretation of Vatican II and late Ratzinger’s interpretation of Vatican II.
c) I’d also recommend that people read the book by Dulles on the Magisterium, which details the difficulties in arriving at a definitive statement of Catholic theology.
Catholicism is a sea island, the boundaries of which keep shifting.
“This person’s plausibility structure (or ‘evidential set’) will make it difficult for him to accept the Catholic position, even if one can make a church history argument for it.”
Keep in mind that Catholic church historians like Ignaz von Döllinger, Klaus Schatz, and Robert Eno challenge the official version of Catholic church history.
Indeed, Döllinger was excommunicated for his refusal to rubberstamp the historical revisionism of Vatican I.
“The concept of attaining justification through works (or partially through works) is a popular concept among humans in general”
Because “justification” for the Catholic is a state of being and not a commodity to be had, it’s clear you do not understand the Catholic view.
As Bryan has pointed out, you are assessing Catholicism with the categories of Protestantism. It’s like a Cricket expert seeing his first U.S. baseball game.
Go Yankees!
Poor Mr. Engwer, all these years of dealing with apologetic issues – especially Roman Catholicism – and he just can’t grasp what RCism truly teaches on justification. Dr. White, Dr. Svendsen, Pastor King, Steve Hays, etc. all seem to miss the mark, as well. Now, we at least have RC converts who “truly” grasp the intricate details of RC soteriology. If we were all so fortunate to receive this divine intellectual revelation to grasp the fullness of all RC teachings. Unfortunately, this is the common smear tactic of common RC apologists when they run through the same worn out arguments that are addressed and refuted time after time. “You just don’t fully understand Catholicism” – or is it that we do understand, but find your reasoning and biblical exegesis untenable and unbiblical?
Francis Beckwith wrote:
“Because ‘justification’ for the Catholic is a state of being and not a commodity to be had, it’s clear you do not understand the Catholic view.”
I wasn’t commenting on that subject, and I left my language vague enough to apply to both concepts. But Evangelicals usually will speak in terms framed by what they consider to be correct. It doesn’t therefore follow that they’re assuming that everybody else agrees with them.
You write:
“As Bryan has pointed out, you are assessing Catholicism with the categories of Protestantism.”
It’s not as though there’s no overlap. And your accusation would carry more weight if it was more than just an assertion.
“Dr. Beckwith — I’ll defer to Jason and some of the others to respond to your arguments, but as a cradle Catholic who struggled for a half a lifetime to come to grips with what that organization really is, I have to say that you need to be scolded, at a moral level, for the evil that you have done. Your publicly-trumpeted return to Rome was a hugely foolish mistake is doing great harm to the true church of Christ — that church of all the elect.”
John, once I concluded I wasn’t one of the elect, what was I to do? Become an unsaved Calvinist, announcing my membership in the goat-side of double predestination? Perish the thought. :-)
So, I became a Catholic. :-)
S. Hays writes: “Sure you want to use Newman to prove your point? As a recent historical monograph has documented, “it was events in Newman’s life that changed his interpretation of the Fathers, not the interpretation of the Fathers that caused Newman to change his life. King argues that Newman tailored his reading, ‘trying on’ the ideas of different Fathers to fit his own needs.””
How do you know that this author is not mistaken as well? One of the things you learn over the years is that there are always going to be thoughtful, careful scholars assessing the same data who come to different conclusions. My own view is that Newman sometimes overreached, and at other times he nailed it. His book on Justification–based on lectures he gave as an ANglican–is an example of the latter. Parts of the Development are clearly better than others, but in general I think he makes a good case.
If I may offer a pastoral note here, it is really unhealthy to always be worrying about arguments as the woof and warp of your faith and walk with Jesus. Arguments are, of course, important. And I suspect less important than you think. For example, Steve cites the B. King book, published in 2009. Are we to actually believe that prior to 2009 he was just waiting for the B. King book or something like it in order to not be tempted to cross the Tiber. Of course not! Things are far more complicated and multilayered than that.
As I write above, one’s plausibility structure plays a much more central role than we often think. But that does not mean that you can’t change your mind. It just means that it is more difficult for some rather than others. I know life-long Calvinists and Lutherans who have become Catholics, who had to overcome far more difficulties than I could ever imagine. It can be done.
John, once I concluded I wasn’t one of the elect, what was I to do?
I’m struck with two things: First, you point to how little someone like Jason Engwer knows about Catholicism, but it is interesting to see how little you knew, and how slight your regard, for Protestantism.
Second, if you have concluded that you are not among the elect, I’m inclined to agree with you on that.
The usual Roman Catholic claim regarding the interpretation of Ephesians 2:8-10 has been repeated here by Bryan Cross, that the works by which we are not saved are works of human invention and/or are works of the now-obsolete Old Testament law. I’d like to ask Bryan to respond to this as well as the heap of other arguments to which he has yet to respond. This is mostly, ISTM, an exegetical question.
Eph 2:8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Now, let’s be clear – our RC friends are saying that justification is at least PARTLY due to works, ie, justification is not by faith alone.
As for this passage, let us note how the ***same*** good works that God has prepared for us to do are the same works that are *NOT* the cause of our salvation. So if the 1st “works” are works of human invention or of the OT Law, then why isn’t the 2nd “works” the same?
Peace,
Rhology
In the earliest days of the 2nd century there was a debate between Catholics and Marcionites on who was Christian. Catholics believed Jesus was the OT God who was born as a virgin as his own Christos (Messiah). Marcionites believed that Jesus was an Alien God who descended fully grown to the earth to defeat the god of this world, who to them was the OT God. And Jesus’ title to them was Chrestos (Upright One, Beneficent One, Morally Excellent One) not Christos (Messiah). So the Catholics accused the Marcionites of removing the virgin birth and OT prophecy fulfillments from their gospel. The Marcionites accused the Catholics of adding OT prophecy fulfillments and the virgin birth to the gospel. Who was right? Well, just read the first two chapters of Matthew and then lookup all the OT prophecies that Matthew cites and read them in context. Then you will see who was right. For Isaiah 7-8 is about a child born of a virgin in Isaiah’s own time as a sign of when the two kings that opposed Ahaz would be defeated by the king of Assyria: his name was Mahershalalhashbaz and Jehovah Himself declares the child to be the fulfillment in ch 8. Micah 5 is about a physical deliverer to lead the people out of Babylonian exile and then defend Palestine against Assyrian incursion. Jeremiah 31 Rachel is weeping because her children are in exile and “are not” in their own land not because they are dead and “are not” alive! Hosea 11:1 the son that God called out of Egypt is explicitely shown to be the nation of Israel. The last prophecy Matthew cites he made up; “he shall be called a Nazarene.” It doesn’t exist. It is a trick to enable every reference to Nazirites to be connected to this city so that Jesus can be connected to the OT God as his Christ. But the fact that the Catholic editor of Matthew had to make up a pack of lies and twist all thes OT passages and even make up a fake propehcy(!!!) Clearly shows that the Marcionites were right: the Catholics made up the birth story. Marcionism, therefore, is not the heresy, but Catholicism is. And if you believe that Jesus is the OT God rather than his opponent or that Jesus was born of a virgin rather than descending from heaven already having his flesh (see John 6:51 “I am the bread which came down from heaven and the bread is my flesh”) then you are a Catholic. The original religion was Chrestianity not Christianity. Even in Sinaiticus the word Christian is spelled with an E, Chrestian. And in Vaticanus with both as Chreistian. Why? Because Catholicism was an agent of Rome to destory Chrestianity by making Jesus into the OT God of Genocide n and thus it became Christianity. Come out from among her my people!!!
[Francis Beckwith] “How do you know that this author is not mistaken as well?”
i) Why do you pose a self-defeating question? If you can ask me that question, then I can ask you the same question in return. So what does that move accomplish for you?
Have you settled for mutual skepticism? How does that give anyone a reason to be Roman Catholic rather than Lutheran or Anglican or Presbyterian or Baptist or Anabaptist?
For example, you earlier cited Cardinal Dulles. What if I replied by saying, “How do you know Dulles isn’t mistaken as well?” Surely you don’t think that’s an adequate response.
ii) Moreover, the possibility that so-and-so could be mistaken doesn’t ipso facto create a presumption that he is mistaken, or probably mistaken. And some folks are less likely to be mistaken than others. Benjamin King is a church historian who’s obviously made a specialized study of Newman. His monograph is published by a leading academic press. Is he infallible? No. But if we were to choose between his interpretation and yours, doesn’t he bring more expertise to the subject than you do?
Sure, you can challenge his interpretation. You might even be right. But you’d have to bring some counterevidence to bear. Not simply float the abstract possibility that he might be mistaken.
“One of the things you learn over the years…”
That line might work with one of your 19-year old students at Baylor. But since you’re about one year my junior, that just doesn’t fly.
“If I may offer a pastoral note here, it is really unhealthy to always be worrying about arguments as the woof and warp of your faith and walk with Jesus. Arguments are, of course, important. And I suspect less important than you think.”
Well, that disclaimer is rather duplicitous in this setting, don’t you think? Both you and Bryan are trying, kinda sorta, to argue for Catholicism. To argue against the Evangelical alternative.
So why do you suddenly introduce this disclaimer? Is that a fallback maneuver because you sense you’re losing the argument?
Disclaimers like this simply boomerang on yourself. It looks like you’re trying to preemptively minimize the value of arguments against Catholicism while, however, we’re supposed to take your arguments against evangelicalism (such as they are) far more seriously.
“Parts of the Development are clearly better than others, but in general I think he makes a good case.”
But that’s in tension with your initial appeal to “the first readers” of Scripture, the subapostolic fathers, &c.
As Mozley pointed out in his 19C review of Newman’s essay, if you’re going to invoke primitive tradition to validate Catholic dogma, then the dogma should be more evident upstream, not downstream.
“For example, Steve cites the B. King book, published in 2009. Are we to actually believe that prior to 2009 he was just waiting for the B. King book or something like it in order to not be tempted to cross the Tiber.”
I was merely responding to Beckwith on his own terms. A tu quoque argument. That doesn’t mean I have a dog in that fight one way or the other as far as Newman is concerned.
Frank Beckwith wrote:
However, there are other aspects of Catholic theology–apostolic succession,
Eucharistic realism, the importance of avoiding the sin of schism, its ancient patrimony, etc.–that tip the scales for me in favor of Catholicism. So, I choose to remain (or become) a Catholic.
Wow. Amazing . . . These things tip the scales for you and yet the massive “development” (adding, changing, corrupting) of unbiblical traditions (indulgences, penance instead of repentance; the treasury of merit; mortal sin and venial sin categories; possibility of actually loosing real justification; purgatory; ex opere operato sacerdotal powers just by words in ceremonies; gazing at and kissing and bowing down I front of relics, praying to Mary, rejection of justification by faith alone; Papal power and arrogance; Marian dogmas – PVM, IC, BA, Co-mediator (a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:5) – all of these unbiblical things should have tipped the scales for Biblical Protestantism, for there is no sound exegesis of Scripture that upholds any of these things.
“It is necessary for all living creatures to be in submission to the Pope for salvation.” Boniface VIII, 1302, Unam Sanctum – This is one of the most arrogant and unbiblical statements ever uttered in history. All of these things are adding to Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; Romans 4:1-8; 4:16; 5:1; Acts 13:38-39; Acts 16:31; John 3:16-18; Romans 10:9-10; Romans 1:16-17. This one principle should tip the scales for true believers for Protestantism/Reformation theology every time, since they deal with specific verses and contexts that are addressing the issue about justification and salvation from sin.
Apostolic succession – if those ordained later drift from the apostolic doctrine/deposit; then the physical succession of laying on of hands or being in the same physical city whether it is Rome or Smyrna or Jerusalem or Ephesus – means nothing. Revelation 2:4-5 – “you have left your first love” – “I am coming to you and I will remove your lamp stand, unless you repent”. Galatians 1:6 – “I am amazed that you have so quickly deserted him who called you by His grace”. Historical churches fell away from God by their false doctrine. Physical place does nothing to guarantee that apostolic doctrine will be there in the future.
Athanasius said, “They hold the places (churches, cities, physical ordination by laying on of hands); but you have the faith.” – Festal Letter 29 (my emphasis)
“I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? Good indeed is the place, when the Apostolic Faith is preached there, holy is it if the Holy One dwell there…” Festal Letter 29
If those who are ordained in local churches fail to uphold the apostolic doctrine (which is only found in canonical Scripture), then physical apostolic succession means nothing.
Protestants who hold to the Bible (Scripture alone) as the final authority have more in common with true apostolic succession, the faith of Peter, and “the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” than Roman Catholicism does.
That should tip the scales for Biblical Protestantism.
“Eucharistic Realism” – Real presence is more real spiritually, than the idolatrous nature of the transubstantiation doctrine. This was really begun in the 800s by Radbertus and continued to 1215 AD. Roman Catholic sacrifice of the mass / transubstantiation is no only unbiblical, but it also against reason, logic and impossible.
Jesus was standing there in His incarnate body when He said, “this is body”. It obviously, as clear as the noonday sun, did not mean “This is literally my physical body also, even though I am right now in space and time right here with you”; rather, it obviously meant, “This bread represents My body and what I will do for you on the cross”
The importance of avoiding schism – this is important; but the violations of the Roman Catholic Church against the truth of Scripture, on the first two points, are so grievous and massive; that truth tips the scales to favor Protestantism. Unity must be around the truth; and your church has raped the truth. John 17:17 – Thy Word is truth; Ephesians 4:1-16 – unity of the Spirit; unity of the faith – this means that if the RCC is wrong on the gospel, and we believe it is indeed; then the Reformation was not schism, but rather it was commanded by God to stand for the truth and separate out from a false gospel. Galatians 1:8-9
Ancient Patrimony – If you read some good Protestant books on the early church fathers, you may see that the evidence is not so one-sided as many of the new RC apologists today think. I wonder if you read any of these.
Sola Scriptura – edited by Don Kistler
Scripture Alone – R. C. Sproul
Scripture Alone – James White
Holy Scripture: the Ground and Pillar of Our Faith; King and Webster
Disputations on Holy Scripture- Whitaker
William Goode, The Divine Rule of Faith and Practice
George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church
Justification in Perspective, edited by Bruce L. McCormack, editor
If a person honestly reads and studies these works, the scales would tip for Biblical Protestantism.
All of these together not only tip the scales in favor of Reformation/Protestantism, but break the scales with the weight of truth.
“Where was Christianity before the Reformation?”
Dualistic belief systems that believed Jesus was a different God from the OT God and descended from heaven already having his flesh persisted up to the 1500s when they appear to have finally been destroyed by joint persecution by Catholics and Protestants. The true religion of Christ (Chrestos) was never Catholicism but always one of the dualistic sects they were brutally masacring. After all, you shall know them by their works. The works of Jesus Chrestos are not murdering and lying but dying for the truth. Who then was really following Jesus? The Catholic murderers? The Protestant murderers who slaughtered anabaptists and non-trinitarians right and left? Or the persecuted dualists and anabaptists and such as were slaughtered by all you holier than thou only we can understand the Bible types? What good is understanding the Bible when Catholics have littered it with pollution and lies to prop up their system like that Isaiah 7-8 is about Jesus rather than Mahershalalhashbaz or that the OT says “he shall be called a Nazarene” when it doesn’t or that HOSEA 11:1 “when israel was young I loved him and called my son out of egypt” is about Jesus rather than Israel at the Exodus??? The Bible can only be understood if you recogni2 that Marcion was right and that th dualistic sects that the Catholics were constantly brutally murdering on up to the Reformation were the best representatives of the true doctrine of Jesus their was. When you realize that the God of Genocide and hate is not Jesus’ former self but an Enemy he came to defeat, then and only then will you trully come to know Jesus Chrestos.
The New Testament writers were authorised to interpret certain Old Testament passages in a way that we in the 21st century may not. Read Luke 24 again very carefully regarding Jesus’ appearing to two of His disciples on the road to Emmaus:
25 And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.
So these are not things that the New Testament writers created. They are the very teachings of Jesus Himself.
I will choose the Scriptures over your objections to God’s Word every time.
Every time.
Pilgrimsarbour, when you say ‘the new testament writers were authorized to twist the OT in ways we are not authorized to do in the 21st century’ it begs the question: WHO AUTHORIZED them to TWIST the OT??? The Catholic church did! And the Catholic church was authorized by the Roman Emperor! The first Christian Bible was Marcion’s Gospel and Apostolicon which wasn’t even called a New Testament since it followed a Daulistic framework. It disregarded the OT prophecies as irrelevant to Jesus, which they are. If you have to be authorized to interpret them a special FALSE and LYING way to make them about Jesus then clearly THEY AREN’T about him. Jesus is not the God of the OT or his Christos but he is the Chrestos a Better God, the Heavenly Father who sent him to save us from the OT Gods plan to burn the righteous and unrighteous alike in hell for all eternity and to corrupt our morals with his genocidal mania and lowbrow sexual morality.
“Well, that disclaimer is rather duplicitous in this setting, don’t you think? Both you and Bryan are trying, kinda sorta, to argue for Catholicism. To argue against the Evangelical alternative.
So why do you suddenly introduce this disclaimer? Is that a fallback maneuver because you sense you’re losing the argument?”
Yikes Steve. I wrote this right after I dealt with King’s book. It was just a kind word to point out that none of us waits for the next issue of Theology Today or the next OUP catalog to see if its still rational to believe what we believe. For if we did, it would be a horrible and creepy (and thus, unhealthy).
Sheesh! Pour yourself a glass of vino and relax. It’s not the end of the world (unless, of course, you’re a dispensationalist). :-)
Ken writes: “Wow. Amazing . . . These things tip the scales for you.”
Ken, slow down. Reread my post. It’s not me. It’s a fictional person that I created to make a point about how people form beliefs. My own reflections are spelled out in greater detail in my book Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic.
I’ve made the same mistake several times while reading others; so, don’t feel bad. But when you’re reading someone–especially someone who is making a pointed in an extended paragraph–you want to take your time.
“[Y]our church has raped the truth.”
Lovely, Ken. The good thing, however, is that it is apparently not “one of the most arrogant and unbiblical statements ever uttered in history.”
I’ve not only looked at some of the books you cite, I’ve read scores of others (over a period of over 30 years), far more sophisticated in defending and critiquing your point of view than the popular tracks you list above. And I finally concluded that Catholicism just has a better case. I can’t, of course, give you a detailed account of my reasoning in this venue. But I can tell you that it’s true what Chesterton said, the Catholic Church is bigger on the inside than it is from the outside.
For example, your little comment about transubstantiation and the language with which you decorate it reveals a cast of mind not unlike the one I had when I was a young Protestant Evangelical in my early 20s. It’s something I eventually matured out of, but it’s a harmful thing. For it is driven by deep desire to be right rather than a love of the truth. You, as I once did, get the “money quote” you need to thump the other guy, but you don’t go any further. You have no curiosity, inquisitiveness, or longing to know more. You are, like I once was, defensive, even fearful, of giving the Catholic Church a fair shake, learning about it on its own terms. Now back to the transubstantiation comment. Think about it. “Transubstantiation” is a term of art that in fact has its origin in the Middle Ages after Aristotelan philosophy begins to shape many thinkers in the Church. That is, the term has a philosophical content that helps scholars and theologians to conceptualize and articulate the idea behind it. But does that mean that the idea depends entirely on Aristotle’s philosophy? Luther thought so. But he was wrong. What he did not consider was the Eastern Church, which held to Eucharistic realism but was untouched by Aristotle. It did not use the term transubstantiation, or even offer a philosophical theory as one finds in the West (though some did), but it maintained that the bread and wine became the body and blood of Christ. Then you have to ask yourself this question, Why would the two branches of Christendom hold the same view for so long, even before the onset of Aristotelean thinking? If you go back, way back, to Ignatius of Antioch (b. AD 50; died at Rome between AD 98 and 117), you find this church father connecting the heresy of Docetism to the denial of Eucharistic Realism: “[They] hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death.” (Smyr 7:1).
So, here’s my suggestion, from the words of John Paul II: “Be not afraid.”
Francis Beckwith wrote:
“If you go back, way back, to Ignatius of Antioch (b. AD 50; died at Rome between AD 98 and 117), you find this church father connecting the heresy of Docetism to the denial of Eucharistic Realism: ‘[They] hold aloof from the Eucharist and from services of prayer, because they refuse to admit that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised. Consequently those who wrangle and dispute God’s gift face death.’ (Smyr 7:1).”
Ignatius could have the meaning you’re claiming, but his language and context are too vague to demonstrate that your position is probable. Earlier in the same letter, Ignatius writes:
“Yea, far be it from me to make any mention of them, until they repent and return to a true belief in Christ’s passion, which is our resurrection.” (5)
Are we to conclude that Ignatius believed that Jesus’ passion (or faith in His passion) is transubstantiated into our resurrection under the appearance of remaining Jesus’ passion (or faith in His passion)? Or that he believed in some sort of Passion Realism that would be similar to the Eucharistic Realism you mention?
The Docetists denied that the eucharist even represents historical, physical flesh and blood, so the most that could be maintained is that an Evangelical denial of a eucharistic presence is somewhat similar to a Docetist’s denial. On the most foundational issue involved, however, the issue of the physicality of the historical Christ and His work, there is no similarity. A Docetist would want to avoid a eucharistic service in any mainstream church today, including churches that hold the memorialist view.
The church fathers held a variety of eucharistic beliefs, and some apparently didn’t believe in a physical presence. Ignatius’ comments are vague enough, in the context he was addressing, to be consistent with all of the mainstream views that would later be expressed by individuals who addressed the subject in more depth. He may have believed in a physical presence in the eucharist, but his comments you’ve quoted wouldn’t lead us to that conclusion.
[Francis Beckwith] “Yikes Steve. I wrote this right after I dealt with King’s book. It was just a kind word to point out that none of us waits for the next issue of Theology Today or the next OUP catalog to see if its still rational to believe what we believe. For if we did, it would be a horrible and creepy (and thus, unhealthy).”
No, you just wait for the next papal encyclical to see if what you were required to believe the day before is what you’re forbidden to believe the day after.
But I can tell you that it’s true what Chesterton said, the Catholic Church is bigger on the inside than it is from the outside.
Yes, Chesterton:
Chesterton writing about the Church is like someone who has just made his first trip to the post office. Look, it delivers letters for the tiny price of a stamp! You write an address on a label, and they will send it anywhere, literally anywhere you like, across a continent and an ocean, in any weather! The fact that the post office attracts timeservers, or has produced an occasional gun massacre, is only proof of the mystical enthusiasm that the post alone provides! Glorifying the postman beyond what the postman can bear is what you do only if you’re new to mail.
(from The New Yorker)
The great irony here: Justification by faith alone being turned into self-justification and a means for boasting, in this case, ways to justify oneself against the Catholic church and boast in the superiority of Protestantism. And therein lies the shallowness of evangelical Protestantism, it loves to wield doctrines but seldomly takes them to heart.
It’s no such thing. It’s the method revealed in the Scriptures – honoring the “jealous” God/Creator, and attributing to Him alone all the glory that He clearly tells us that He deserves.
He doesn’t say anything about second causes here, for example:
I am the LORD, and there is no other. I did not speak in secret,
in a land of darkness;
I did not say to the offspring of Jacob,
‘Seek me in vain.’
I the LORD speak the truth;
I declare what is right.
Assemble yourselves and come;
draw near together,
you survivors of the nations!
They have no knowledge
who carry about their wooden idols,
and keep on praying to a god
that cannot save.
Declare and present your case;
let them take counsel together!
Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD?
And there is no other god besides me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
“Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
Anyone advocating the intercessory nature of the Catholic church, must show where God gave up this prerogative.
Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel
and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts:
“I am the first and I am the last;
besides me there is no god.
Who is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and set it before me,
since I appointed an ancient people.
Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Fear not, nor be afraid;
have I not told you from of old and declared it?
And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me?
There is no Rock; I know not any.”
Remember these things, O Jacob,
and Israel, for you are my servant;
I formed you; you are my servant;
O Israel, you will not be forgotten by me.
I have blotted out your transgressions like a cloud
and your sins like mist;
return to me, for I have redeemed you.
Sing, O heavens, for the LORD has done it;
shout, O depths of the earth;
break forth into singing, O mountains,
O forest, and every tree in it!
For the LORD has redeemed Jacob,
and will be glorified in Israel.
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD, who made all things,
who alone stretched out the heavens,
who spread out the earth by myself…
Faith is an empty hand that receives salvation from God. To consider that anything you work for counts as anything in God’s sight, goes far beyond God’s understanding of how He does things.
[Phil Buster] “The great irony here: Justification by faith alone being turned into self-justification and a means for boasting, in this case, ways to justify oneself against the Catholic church and boast in the superiority of Protestantism. And therein lies the shallowness of evangelical Protestantism, it loves to wield doctrines but seldomly takes them to heart.”
First of all, I notice that you don’t rebut a single thing that Jason and I have said. So, to judge by your own performance, you regard your Catholic faith as indefensible.
Beyond that, your statement is a study in confusion. Whether we, as sinners, can merit our justification before God is a completely different question than providing an intellectual justification for our belief-system. An intellectual justification is not a question of personal merit, much less personal merit in relation to God. That’s hardly the “boasting” which Paul had in mind. Don’t you know the difference? And there’s nothing essentially “boastful” about an intellectual justification.
And if you think that providing an intellectual justification for one’s faith betrays the shallowness of one’s faith, then you condemn the Roman Catholic tradition of formal theology and polemic theology. Likewise, doesn’t Catholicism claim to be superior to evangelicalism? Why are you Roman Catholic rather than Protestant if you deem the two positions to be coequal?
“the Roman Catholic tradition of formal theology and polemic theology.”
That should read “fundamental and polemical theology.”
I think everyone’s out of here…
Dear Frank Beckwith,
Thanks for reading and the good interaction with my post. Yes, I see what you are talking about that the “tip the scales” statement was hypothetical. Still, I am amazed that the scales tipped for you and for the hypothetical person that way, based on those issues.
I admit that the “your church raped the truth” was a harsh statement. But if we Protestants are right, and the issue is the most crucial issue of all, life and death, heaven and hell, and adding works as a condition for justification, then “the truth hurts”, is true, right?
On Ignatius’ statement in Syrneans 7:1 – yes, I know about that – but he doesn’t seem to be saying what you and RCC apologists are making him say, in my opinion. (and many other, as Jason Engwer also point out) Ignatius points out that the docetic heretics don’t partake of any Lord’s supper/Eucharist or prayer at all because they don’t believe Jesus had a real physical body in time/space/history.
But we DO have Eucharist/Lord’s supper and prayers to God because we believe He really was the God-man in history/time/space. So, I don’t see how Ignatius’ statement applies to Protestant doctrine who deny transubstantiation.
If we examine ourselves, repent, reconcile, worship, remember what Christ did; and believe in His real time/space/historical death for sin; what advantage/difference/benefit is the RCC view?
Jesus’ flesh . . . “which suffered for our sins and which, in his goodness, the Father raised.” — seems to emphasize the reality of the incarnation, and the celebration of that fact in history is a remembrance of the real physical history of the suffering of the cross and resurrection.
Thanks again for your thoughts; I sincerely mean it.
my internet went down for a whole day, so that is why I couldn’t respond faster.
Dr. Beckwith,
Also, one of my best friends was Rod Bennett, author of Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words. ( Ignatius, 2002) He was one of the groomsmen at my wedding. (1988) We discussed C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer for years. (81-95) (before he converted to Roman Catholicism in 1996) We debated for years after his conversion up until a few years ago (1996-2004). I have heard all the arguments from his perspective (as an insider), over face to face interaction and emails and looking at texts together over pizza and Burger King and chilli dinners; he quoted John Henry Newman, Chesterton, Aquinas, DeSales, Bellermine, all the early church fathers (even more than his book has), Hillaire Belloc, etc.
I am only pointing out that I have actually “checked it out” pretty thoroughly, and from someone very smart, like you. Rod doesn’t have the academic credentials that you have, but he is one of the smartest and most creative persons I have every known.
It still doesn’t tip the scales for me.
“was” does not mean that we are no longer on speaking terms; we just drifted away, after he told me in 2004/2005 ? that he did not want to debate anymore; means that he did not want to debate me anymore on RCC or theological/church history issues; and we just don’t have time for small talk, and we are too busy with our separate lives. But I do miss the discussions with him; Rod is very interesting.