News is circulating that Jason Stellman has finally made official what many surmised — converted to Roman Catholicism. The link to his piece is now dead, which may suggest a vast right-wing Protestant conspiracy. But various bloggers — eager beavers that they are — have offered extensive comments on various quotes from Stellman’s first public statement. These in turn give a feel for some of his reasoning. (My own knowledge of Stellman’s reflections come from the anonymous ghost of Reformed orthodoxy past.)
If the quotations are accurate, Stellman offers nothing really new so far. He still thinks sola scriptura will not yield an authoritative interpretation of Scripture (which Rome seems to do). He also questions the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura.
The alleged deficiencies of Protestant soteriology deserve some comment. At one point Stellman writes:
Having realized that I was using a few select (and hermeneutically debatable) passages from Romans and Galatians as the filter through which I understood everything else the New Testament had to say about salvation, I began to conclude that such an approach was as arbitrary as it was irresponsible. I then sought to identify a paradigm, or simple statement of the gospel, that provided more explanatory value than Sola Fide did. As I hope to unpack in more detail eventually, I have come to understand the gospel in terms of the New Covenant gift of the Spirit, procured through the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ, who causes fruit to be borne in our lives by reproducing the image of the Son in the adopted children of the Father. If love of God and neighbor fulfills the law, and if the fruit of the Spirit is love, having been shed abroad by the Spirit in our hearts, then it seems to follow that the promise of the gospel is equivalent with the promise of the New Covenant that God’s law will no longer be external to the believer, but will be written upon his mind and heart, such that its righteous demands are fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. And again unsurprisingly, when I turned to the early Church fathers, and especially Augustine, it was this very understanding of the gospel that I encountered over and over again.
What is striking about Rome’s teaching in Stellman’s account is its consequence for how we think about sainthood. According to Protestantism, I (all about me) am a saint already here and now by virtue of faith in Christ and the imputed righteousness and holiness that come by through saving faith. This is why most Reformed creeds and catechisms teach about the communion of the saints. Believers who gather for worship, are members of the church, baptized, and participate in the Lord’s Supper are saints. This is also the language of the New Testament. Paul addresses that sad sack of believers in Corinth as saints (2 Cor 1:1), as well as the believers in Ephesus (1:1).
Roman Catholics, in contrast, reserve the language of sainthood for those Christians who have been canonized. At one (of many) Roman Catholic websites, the process by which a believer becomes a saint receives the following description:
Canonization, the process the Church uses to name a saint, has only been used since the tenth century. For hundreds of years, starting with the first martyrs of the early Church, saints were chosen by public acclaim. Though this was a more democratic way to recognize saints, some saints’ stories were distorted by legend and some never existed. Gradually, the bishops and finally the Vatican took over authority for approving saints.
In 1983, Pope John Paul II made sweeping changes in the canonization procedure. The process begins after the death of a Catholic whom people regard as holy. Often, the process starts many years after death in order give perspective on the candidate. The local bishop investigates the candidate’s life and writings for heroic virtue (or martyrdom) and orthodoxy of doctrine. Then a panel of theologians at the Vatican evaluates the candidate. After approval by the panel and cardinals of the Congregation for the Causes of Saints, the pope proclaims the candidate “venerable.”
The next step, beatification, requires evidence of one miracle (except in the case of martyrs). Since miracles are considered proof that the person is in heaven and can intercede for us, the miracle must take place after the candidate’s death and as a result of a specific petition to the candidate. When the pope proclaims the candidate beatified or “blessed,” the person can be venerated by a particular region or group of people with whom the person holds special importance.
Only after one more miracle will the pope canonize the saint (this includes martyrs as well). The title of saint tells us that the person lived a holy life, is in heaven, and is to be honored by the universal Church. Canonization does not “make” a person a saint; it recognizes what God has already done.
Though canonization is infallible and irrevocable, it takes a long time and a lot of effort. So while every person who is canonized is a saint, not every holy person has been canonized. You have probably known many “saints” in your life, and you are called by God to be one yourself.
To move from membership in a Protestant church into fellowship with the Bishop of Rome (i.e., the Pope), then, is to lose one’s status as a saint. In fact, the Protestant convert could likely never recover his former status, given the requirements for canonization and beatification.
This difference may not be enough to give Stellman former saint’s remorse, but it does underscore an important difference between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. We view sainthood and sanctity differently, and the basis for that difference has much to do with the sole sufficiency of Christ’s righteousness for any Christian who might claim to be a saint.
This may also be an important perspective on those old debates about the priority of justification. Sanctification, imperfect as it is in this life, is not sufficient to make one a saint, at least not according to the communion that regards justification, according to Stellman, as a life-long process of having the love of God written on the believer’s heart. But justification (of the Protestant variety) is enough for sainthood since I personally receive all of Christ’s righteousness in faith and that is the only qualification in which I could take comfort for sanctity.
246 Comments
Jeremy Tate: Richard Smith, Or what about Jesus? “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. – Mattthew 7:21
RS: I fully agree with this text of Scripture. Not everyone who says ‘Lord, Lord’ will enter the kingdom. I also fully agree that only those who do the will of the Father who is in heaven will enter the kingdom. The true teaching of justification by grace alone through faith alone is evidently something you have avoided if you think that people who believe it think that a person can enter heaven while willfully not obeying the Father.
Jeremy T: But then again, Reformed people don’t like to look to the words of Christ when it comes to understanding justification. He is pretty much dismissesd on this complicated subject. Man cannot be justified without agape, without love for God. Scripture is all to clear on this point.
RS: Once again, I guess I am mistaken and am not Reformed because I love the words of Jesus. Why would want to dismiss Him, though this subject is perhaps not as complicated as you say. You are correct in saying that man cannot be justified apart from agape because Jesus lived a perfect life out of perfect love for the Father and obtained a perfect righteousness for His elect. You might want to read I John 4:7-8, however. There it speaks of how the only people who love are believers and believers are born of God and know God. It is not that a person earns part of their salvation or any aspect of it by love, but rather when they are regenerated and justified they are enabled to love.
What did the thief on the cross do to justify himself? Jesus said he would be in paradise that very day. What works did the tax collector do to justify himself in Luke 18? He went home justified.
13 “But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’
14 “I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
RS: Look closely at Mat 19: 23-26, which are once again the words of Jesus: ” And Jesus said to His disciples, “Truly I say to you, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
24 “Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were very astonished and said, “Then who can be saved?” 26 And looking at them Jesus said to them, “With people this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
RS: Notice that Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (unless you really hump it?) than it was for a rich man to be saved. Do you teach that to rich people? The disciples were astonished at that as well and wondered who could (word of ability) be saved. Jesus was quite plain and clear when He told them that with people “this is impossible”. Salvation is only possible with God. He did not say that salvation was possibly possible with men nor that salvation was mostly possible with God. He said that with people salvation was impossible and yet with God it is possible. I love the words of Jesus, but that is why I believe in justification by grace alone.
Matthew 5:3 says that “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.”
RS: The Greek word here has the idea of being utterly impoverished. It teaches us that in terms of our spirit or spiritual realm the blessed ones are those that have no righteousness of their own and have no way or means of obtaining it. These are the ones who look to grace alone to save them rather than looking work up something to assist in their salvation. The words of Jesus (according to Jesus) are spirit and they are life. He did not say that His words plus our works are life, but He who is life gives words of life.
Jeremy Tate:
“Reformed people don’t like to look to the words of Christ when it comes to understanding justification. He is pretty much dismissesd on this complicated subject. Man cannot be justified without agape, without love for God. Scripture is all to clear on this point.”
Jeremy, Jesus of Nazareth doesn’t teach “justification through faith working through love” as you claim.
Consider the words of a tax-collector:
“God, be merciful to me, the sinner!” I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.” (Luke 18:13).
If the tax collector had agape in his heart he would have been insincere, according to RCC theology, for claiming he was a “sinner.” He should instead have said, “I have seen the working of agape in my heart. Please justify me.”
He would have needed to measure his heart for something meritorious before having the audacity to ask God for the mercy that results in justification. Instead he claims the opposite: “God be merciful to me the sinner.” The Pharisee, who did look into his own heart, and found in it merit, was condemned forever.
And btw, I’m not Reformed.
Erik,
On purgatory; the WCF (chapter XXXII) affirms that after we die we are then MADE perfect and then we enter into heaven. So when and where are we made perfect? According to the WCF it happens before we enter heaven? So, that begs the question, where does this happen? Catholics just call it purgatory, but the WCF acknowledges it nonetheless.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate: On purgatory; the WCF (chapter XXXII) affirms that after we die we are then MADE perfect and then we enter into heaven. So when and where are we made perfect? According to the WCF it happens before we enter heaven? So, that begs the question, where does this happen? Catholics just call it purgatory, but the WCF acknowledges it nonetheless.
RS: The WCF does not acknowledge anything like purgatory. God regenerates souls and declares them righteous in His sight because of who Christ is and what Christ has done. However, that does not make the soul perfect in all they do. They grow in holiness in practice in their lifes, but when they die they leave the body of death and are given a new body at the final judgment. In that new body they are holy in all they do.
Chapter XXXII
Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead
I. The bodies of men, after death, return to dust, and see corruption:[1] but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them:[2] the souls of the righteous, being then made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies.[3] And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day.[4] Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledges none.
RS: The WCF acknowledges (as well as Scripture) no other places in eternity other than the place of God and the place of judgment. Notice that the bodies of all go to the dust and suffer corruption, but the souls of the righteous are then made perfect. This is to say that they will sin no longer. The souls of the wicked suffer the wrath of God.
II. At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed:[5] and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.[6]
RS: On the last day all the dead will be raised with new bodies which are united to their souls.
III. The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body.[7]
RS: There is nothing about purgatory or anything like it because Christ has satisfied the full wrath and justice of the Father for His elect and there is no wrath left.
Jeremy – “On purgatory; the WCF (chapter XXXII) affirms that after we die we are then MADE perfect and then we enter into heaven.”
This sounds like the U.S. Supreme Court finding a right to abortion in the “penumbras” of the Constitution. I also didn’t ask about the WCF, but about the Bible. Why would a Roman Catholic care about what the WCF says?
Erik,
What Bizarro Jeremy means is that the WCF affirms a “purgation” while the RCC says it happens in a place. It’s a common argument that ignores that we deny any intercessory contribution to it. It was actually a reflection on their liturgy (again, believed to be part of the deposit, along wih precedents like 2nd Maccabees) that led RCC and OC to affirm it as a place of purgation that intercessory prayer affects. But to say that that’s just the logical extension of our beliefs in a final transformation and intercessory prayer is dishonest. When I pray that my brother will return to the fold from agnosticism, it’s not efficacious in a mathematical way, like paying down a debt.
Erik,
This sounds like the U.S. Supreme Court finding a right to abortion in the “penumbras” of the Constitution. I also didn’t ask about the WCF, but about the Bible. Why would a Roman Catholic care about what the WCF says?
Yes, onto the Bible. My point about the Westminster Confession of Faith was simply that the WCF affirms that some sort of transformation must happen after we die, but before we enter heaven. This sounds a whole lot like purgatory to me.
Scripture? There are many verses that affirm purgation or cleansing through fire. Again, neither purgation nor cleansing could happen in either heaven or hell. In heaven all are perfect and in heaven all suffer the eternal condemnation of God. Three verses to look at would be; 1 Cor. 3:10-15, Jude 1:23, and Rev 3:18-19. There is also the strange verse of Jesus preaching to the Spirits in prison (1st Peter 3:19). I’m not going to offer an extended exegesis of all the verses here, though if you want I will. I am also fine admitting that none of these verses offer an extended discourse on purgatory as a dogma. However, it is impossible to understand these verses if you are committed to the idea that the only spiritual realms in existence are earth, heaven, and hell.
Think about it on a personal level though and your own desire to be holy and perfect before the Lord. I think C.S. Lewis says it the best;
Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? Would in not break the heart if God said to us, ‘It is true, my son, that your breath smells and your rags drip with mud and slime, but we are charitable here and no one will upbraid you with these things, nor draw away from you. Enter into the joy’? Should we not reply, ‘With submission, sir, and if there is no objection, I’d rather be cleaned first.’ ‘It may hurt, you know’ – ‘Even so, sir.’
- C.S.Lewis, Letters To Malcom: Chiefly on Prayer, chapter 20, paragraphs 7-10, pages 108-109
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Ted,
Slow down a minute please, the story of the repentant tax collector is one of my favorite in all of Scripture, always has been, and it perfectly fits into the Catholic understanding of justification. Look at 1889 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church;
The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39 (Did you notice here that grace comes first?)
In the story of the tax collector in Luke 18 we are seeing a conversion. It comes from grace alone as a free gift. We really agree on this point (I think). What happens next is where we disagree. Consider an analogy; suppose you get your son a puppy for his birthday. It is a gift right? But then you tell him that he must water and feed his puppy or it will die. Does telling him that make it any less of a gift? Are you somehow less gracious because he must cooperate to keep his gift alive. Since justifying faith must be a LIVING faith it must be fed/watered through the Word and Sacraments. Apart from this it will die. Where and how would you disagree with this analogy?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy McL., yes, Rome is the discussion, but a big part of this conversation involves history and how we view it. You may remember asserting that I don’t believe in God’s providence because of my view of history. And history is a big part of the CTCer’s move to Rome. So bringing up Constantinople only seems fair.
And that’s why I said history settles nothing. What Jesus and the apostles, not to mention the prophets, said matters. Granted, history involves a lot of interpretations of those writings. But if the way to settle those disagreements is simply to turn to one set of interpreters (and then assume they are coherent), that’s a pretty tidy but not very historically accurate way out.
Jeremy T., if doing the will of God is the standard, no one gets in, not even Mother Theresa. You have to do it completely and all the time. Oy!
Jeremy T., if the WCF affirms something like purgatory, why become Roman Catholic?
D.G.,
Who becomes Catholic for purgatory? I became Catholic because it offered continuity with the ancient Church, but more importantly because it offered a means to know Christ more fully. Again, I’m just making the point that the WCF affirms that something does happen between earth and heaven where we are “made” perfect.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T., “if doing the will of God is the standard, no one gets in, not even Mother Theresa. You have to do it completely and all the time. Oy!”
Not true, what we’re talking about here is abiding in Christ (John 15) and Jesus teaches that we must do this. I don’t see how we can get around this truth. Abiding in Christ means living by the Spirit and not willfully falling into what we know is grave sin.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T: The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’ proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”38 Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high. “Justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man.39 (Did you notice here that grace comes first?)
RS: Actually, you missed several things, but let us focus on two. One, in Roman Catholicism baptism is what starts conversion. At least that is what Trent says. The tax collector was not baptized. Two, the tax collecter simply asked for mercy and he went home justified. Rome would not allow that this man went home justified since he had not worked out of love at all and had not been baptized.
Jeremy T, you never answered my reply to you on James 2.
Jeremy,
The man who identifies himself as a sinner without any expectation of mercy, but calls on the Lord who is rich in mercy, receives justification. The tax collector went down to his house not potentially justified, but justified (Luke 18:14). If the man had then said, “I am only potentially justified, he would have sinned unbelief against God. Roman Catholics cannot submit to this without becoming anathema, based on the Council of Trent.
The man who thinks to himself he does have reason to receive God’s mercy (based on love in his heart, say) receives nothing but more blindness.
To your analogy:
Boys like puppies. A lot. No change needs to occur within them to make it so. And when the son fails to care for the puppy, his Mom, Dad, and sibs help out. And even if he entirely fails, he is always his father’s son.
In RCC theology grace is not grace but a test, even as the gift of the puppy was not a gift but a test. If the boy passes the test he gets reward (justification). The Father is not so grace-filled after all but tests his son in probation. The son was actually better off without such a “gift.”
Sinners hate God. A lot. They are unable to understand spiritual truth with a believing heart. And they cannot please God (Rom. 8:9). Every good thing He gives them they kill with sin.
DG: “You may remember asserting that I don’t believe in God’s providence because of my view of history.”
JM: I remember Jeremy TATE saying that (http://oldlife.org/2012/07/former-saints-remorse/comment-page-3/#comment-53359) but I’m Jeremy MCLELLAN. I could not disagree more with what he said by the way. It sounds an awful lot like the Providentialist historiography of which I was quite disabused at Covenant, including reading YOUR collection “Religious Advocacy and American History.” I’m fine with methodological naturalism.
Still, the way we typically respond to the David Bartons of the world is by publishing stuff like “Getting Jefferson Right” (http://amzn.com/B007ZUDUAU) or “Was America Founded as a Christian Nation?” (http://amzn.com/B004WDYKG6). If America was a “Christian Nation” until 1973, that would matter, wouldn’t it? If not, then why is it so important to the Religious Right to assert it, and for us to debunk it?
If it helps keep us separate, think:
McLellan=SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIAN
Tate=”To knowingly supply answers to a midterm after being specifically told not to by the professor” according to the infallible Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tate)
Men,
I’m going to let this be my last comment as parenting responsibilities will prevent me from continuing our conversation. First, I graduated from Reformed Theological Seminary and I still have a great deal of respect for Reformed Theology and an even greater respect for my reformed friends (especially in comparison with broad evangelicalism). I have made the same arguments to Catholics in the past that I hear you making now. I can only hope that we can go beyond defending sides and towards seeking truth. I came to the unexpected theological conclusion that the Catholic Church is the Church Jesus founded and that in a world of skepticism and confusion she is the one I can trust. Make no mistake about it, I only spend time on sites like this because I have a desire to see other Reformed people convert as well. I could never put into words the fullness and richness I have found in the Catholic Church and I believe I am receiving sanctifying grace through the sacraments in a way I never knew existed as a Reformed seminarian.
Ted, back to the puppies. I was laughing when I read your response, talking about puppies in the context of justification just seems unexpected. True, if other’s step in the dog will not die. There were only two people in the story though and dad is dad and he told his boy that puppies needs water to live. Assume he works really long hours (whatever, all analogies break down). It doesn’t change it being a gift and grace really is grace in Catholicism because it is effectual.
Richard Smith, you wrote “Actually, you missed several things, but let us focus on two. One, in Roman Catholicism baptism is what starts conversion. At least that is what Trent says.” Normally, but not always. The thief on the cross was never baptized either and no Catholic doubts his salvation. Look at the Catholic Catechism 1258; “The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.” You don’t know that the tax collector was never baptized and perhaps he received the fruits of baptism without the sacrament.
Richard Smith, “you never answered my reply to you on James 2″. My point was simply that the only time Scripture ever mentions “faith alone” it rejects it. Protestantism drove a wedge between grace and works and ignores the distinction between the works of the regenerate and unregenerate.
I’m sure I will be frequenting this site more often as I’ve really enjoyed our conversation. My wife is pregnant with baby #4 and is really sick and I’m sure theology blogging during this time probably isn’t the best way to love her as Christ loved the Church. Thanks for the dialogue.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy T quoting Richard Smith, “you never answered my reply to you on James 2″.
Jeremy T: My point was simply that the only time Scripture ever mentions “faith alone” it rejects it. Protestantism drove a wedge between grace and works and ignores the distinction between the works of the regenerate and unregenerate.
RS: But the point of that verse in James 2 is to show that one type of justification is by works and it is not by faith. The text does not say that one is justified partially by works and partially by faith. Protestantism has not driven a wedge between grace and works, it just shows the true connection. There are no works that a person can do that can possibly contribute to justification since Christ puchased that all by Himself. It is only when a person is freed from having to work for salvation or part of salvation that a person is free to work according to love and to desire the glory of God in what he does. Protestantism (Reformed) does not drive a wedge between works and grace, but instead is the only way that good works are possible. Rome, on the other hand, makes grace and good works impossible because it does not allow for a pure or real grace. Remember, any work added to grace makes grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6).
I can only say I am sorry that you graduated from Reformed without understanding what the Reformed teaching on justification really is. While we share a desire to see Reformed people converted, they don’t need to convert to Rome because that is not true conversion. That is falling from grace as a way of salvation. I am sorry to hear that you think that sanctifying grace comes through the sacraments in a way that it does not come in Protestantism. That can only mean that you are not looking to Christ alone by grace alone.
Richard Smith,
I do understand the Reformed Teaching on Justification and I believe it is only partial truth. You cannot be saved without love for God, Catholics cannot give up this truth. Let me end with a brutally honest quote from one of the most influential Catholic Apologists living today, Dr. Peter Kreeft;
But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds. Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!
Until we Catholics know the foundation, Protestants are not going to listen to us when we try to teach them about the upper stories of the building. Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that salvation is a free gift of grace, accepted by faith. I remember vividly the thrill of discovery when, as a young Protestant at Calvin College, I read Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on justification. I did not find what I had been told I would find, “another gospel” of do-it-yourself salvation by works, but a clear and forceful statement that we can do nothing without God’s grace, and that this grace, accepted by faith, is what saves us.
The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book. It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.”
We should listen to Dr. Kreeft. Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy,
I did listen to Peter Kreeft. When I took multiple classes from him while studying RC theology at Boston College.
He is very far from a Christian apologist. He is a Thomist and does not regard the human mind fallen in Adam. And that leads him to be a Pelagian who can seek and find God through the mind apart from revelation.
And since knowing God doesn’t rely on revelation it has lead him to believe in salvation by magic. The Catholic system, iow. And it is this magic that is the “fullness and richness” of what brings you comfort.
I do hope you wife feels better. Will be praying for her, and you.
Jeremy T., how do you know Christ more fully when his work and merits become more obscure? If Christ’s righteousness is sufficient, why purgatory? Protestant believers who don’t die – as when Christ returns – don’t aren’t purged by death or purgatory.
Jeremy McL. sorry for the confusion. As long as you don’t sign off “in the peace of Christ” I should be able to keep you straight.
I don’t believe the U.S. was or is a Christian nation. Only one nation was Christian — Israel. And that arrangement ceased at Easter.
So another way to respond to Barton is to do theology.
Jeremy T., but if we are saved by grace, then why do we HAVE to love God? After five centuries, I’d think Rome might be able to see a bit of a wrinkle here. Then again, Protestants also confuse nothing I do can please God with I must love God to enjoy his favor.
The oldest teachings of the church are in Scripture and there both Peter and Paul teach salvation by faith which receives Christ’s righteousness, not faith which loves. True faith does love, but that love is not sufficient to please God.
I’d ask you to go back to your notes on the doctrine of man and consider how desperately wicked men and women are and how the only solution to human depravity is the perfect righteousness of Christ, not the grace assisted love of men and women.
Flipping through the channels this morning past several “church services” I heard Joel Osteen telling his massive flock that God would “give them what they deserve”. I immediately switched over to a show with a more accurate view of human depravity – “Mad Men”.
But many Catholics to this day have not learned the Catholic and biblical doctrine. They think we are saved by good intentions or being nice or sincere or trying a little harder or doing a sufficient number of good deeds. Over the past twenty-five years I have asked hundreds of Catholic college students the question: If you should die tonight and God asks you why he should let you into heaven, what would you answer? The vast majority of them simply do not know the right answer to this, the most important of all questions, the very essence of Christianity. They usually do not even mention Jesus!
Jeremy T., and you don’t see this as a plausible outworking of the Catholic doctrine that one is as justified as he he sanctified?
Zrim,
Earlier Jeremy talked about his friend who was deliberately choosing to live in sexual sin because he thought he was elect and that God was helping him understand his own depravity. How would you have responded if I had asked the question you ask above? My guess is you would caution me about the whole “plausible outworking” argument since it is totally fallacious, right?
Golden Rule, is what I’m saying.
JJS, but one difference is that I cannot attest to many Reformed not having learned the Reformed and biblical doctrine and living like Jeremy’s antinomian friend. If I could, I suppose there would be more ground for you to ask the question. I can, however, attest to many Reformed living like neo-nomians, which suggests having a doctrine more in line with Catholic teaching than Protestant.
Christians are not sinners anymore? We don’t deliberately sin? Our sin is accidental? We don’t sin that often? We only occasionally “fall into it”? If we think our sinning more or less effects “final justification”, then we have not yet been justified by God imputing to us the righteousness of Christ’s death for the elect.
To think our “good enough” love for God and neighbor is an inevitable result of God’s justification is to be either self-righteously deceived or to be in despair with no assurance of justification. To turn the result into a condition, to disguise the imperative as an indicative, to confuse law and gospel, starts a path which leads to the system of anti-christ.
Jonathan Edwards: “In one sense, faith is the condition of justification; in another sense, other qualifications are conditions of justification….if it be that with which a thing shall be and without which a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition, but in this sense faith is not the only condition of justification, for there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, such as love to God….There are many other things which are directly proposed to us, to be performed by us in order to eternal life, as those which if they are done, we shall have eternal life, and if not done, we shall surely perish.”
WJE 19:152
Edwards, The Blank Bible, WJE 24:1171—on James 2:24—”They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
To get the bad taste of je out of your mouth, Benjamin Keach (credobaptist 1640-1704, The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification Without Works, Solid Ground Books, Birmingham, Alabama USA, 2007, p 80)—” “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”
mark mcculley: To get the bad taste of je out of your mouth, Benjamin Keach (credobaptist 1640-1704, The Marrow of True Justification: The Biblical Doctrine of Justification Without Works, Solid Ground Books, Birmingham, Alabama USA, 2007, p 80)—” “Once we are justified, we need not inquire how a man is justified after he is justified. By that righteousness of Christ which is out of us, though imputed to us, the Justice of God is satisfied; therefore all Works done by us, or inherent in us, are excluded in our Justification before God.”
RS: You just might consider that James (that is the James in the Bible speaks of two justifications. Roman Catholics confuse the two and so end up saying salvation is by works and by faith, but the text (James 2:24) clearly says that “a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” We must not try to get around what that text says. Rome tries to get around it by saying that one is justified by faith and by works. Some Protestants try to get around it with other contortions. But the text plainly and clearly says that “a man is justified by works” and is not justified “by faith alone.” Verse 25 goes on to say that “In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?”
As much as Roman Catholics don’t like it, these two verses clearly teach a justification by works, but it is not a justification for salvation by works. As much as Protestants don’t like it, there is a justification by works. If you read James 2 closely, it is clear what was/is going on. Abraham was declared just and had a perfect righteousness imputed to him through faith in Genesis 15:6. James 2:21 tells us that Abraham was justified by works when he offerec up Isaac his son on the altar. Then in v. 23 it says that “Scripture was fulfilled which says, “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.” In other words, Abraham was declared just in the sight of God by an imputed righteousness in Genesis 15:6, but in Genesis 22 Abraham was justified in another sense when he offered up his son.
The answer is this. Hebrews 11:17-19 tells us that Abraham believed the promise of God so much that it was through his son (Isaac) that the promises would come, that when God commanded Abraham to kill the son that Abraham believed that God would raise him from the dead. How do we know that Abraham believed the promises of God? It was many years later in Genesis 22. As much as Protestants like you (Mark) don’t like it, there is a justification that is not at the time of salvation. There are works that show whether a person truly believes (faiths) or not.
Revelation also speaks of another judgment as does Phil 2 where all knees will bow. These are not the declared justification of sinners on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ, but are or works which justify in a different sense. Perhaps you would like the word “vindicate” better, but the text is still there and that is what people mean when they use the word “justification.”
Rev 20:11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.
12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.
13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
Christ Himself was vindicated/justified after or by the resurrection. I Tim 3:16 “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh, Was vindicated in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Proclaimed among the nations, Believed on in the world, Taken up in glory.” Christ Himself, then, was vindicated or justified by the resurrection after His work on the cross. Sinners vindicate God or the law or demonstrate what they are by works, but not simply by works done in the flesh and in their own strength. James 2 is very clear about another type of justification. I hope that you will not find James giving you a bad taste in your mouth.
But we’ve see the RCC argument before, haven’t we? “Abraham is our father” becomes “Peter is our father.” The Hebrews had their extra-biblical traditions they followed, and the RCC has its extra- and contra-biblical traditions they follow. Jesus rebuked those traditions in the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 23 and the Reformation similarly rebuked the RCC.
If longevity is the key, let’s just go all the way back the treasure-store of tradition that existed at the time of Christ. The RCC’s? Eh, they’re Johnny-come-latelys.
mark mcculley: Edwards, The Blank Bible, WJE 24:1171—on James 2:24—”They fail to distinguish first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s coming to have a righteousness imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at the judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared to be righteous. This is by works and not by faith only.”
RS: Just before Mark’s quote of Edwards above, Edwards says this:
“They mistook the nature of justifying faith, and supposed that mere assent of the understanding to doctrines [of] Christianity…was the faith the apostles meant when they said that we are justified by faith.
2. They did not understand the connection between between justifying faith and works, and that the working nature of faith was the life and soul of it….
3. They did not distinguish gbetween the first and second justification. The first justification, which is at conversion, is a man’s becoming righteous, or his coming to have a righteousness belonging to him, or imputed to him. This is by faith alone. The second is at judgment, which is that by which a man is proved and declared righteous. This is by works, and not by faith alone.
The apostle Paul, as well as James, held good works to be essential to true faith (I Tim 5:8).
Edwards defends the justification of the ungodly in his work on Justification as well as anyone. However, when you speak of James we must let the Word of God speak. But speaking of Keach, read this of the catechism that is in his name. It seems as if he might not agree with you either.
Q. 38. What is sanctification?
A. Sanctification is the work of God’s free grace whereby we are renewed in the whole Man after the image of God, and are enabled more and more to die unto sin, and live unto righteousness.
Q. 41: What Benefits do believers receive from Christ at the Resurrection?
A, AT the REsurrection believers being raised up in glroy, shall be openly acknowledged, and acquiited [justified] in the Day of Judgement, and made perfectly blessed, both in soul and body.
Jeremy Tate: Richard Smith, I do understand the Reformed Teaching on Justification and I believe it is only partial truth. You cannot be saved without love for God, Catholics cannot give up this truth.
RS: You have yet to show that you understand the Reformed and biblical teaching on justification by grace alone. Maybe you do understand it and just reject it, but so far you have not shown that you truly understand it. Christ has loved God perfectly and so His life of love is imputed to His people as perfect righteousness. It appears to me that you want God to accept a very imperfect love that comes from us as a basis of justification. The perfect and complete love of Christ is all that is needed.
Jeremy T: Let me end with a brutally honest quote from one of the most influential Catholic Apologists living today, Dr. Peter Kreeft;
” Perhaps God allows the Protestant/Catholic division to persist not only because Protestants have abandoned many precious truths taught by the Church but also because many Catholics have never been taught the most precious truth of all, that salvation is a free gift of grace, accepted by faith. I remember vividly the thrill of discovery when, as a young Protestant at Calvin College, I read Saint Thomas Aquinas and the Council of Trent on justification. I did not find what I had been told I would find, “another gospel” of do-it-yourself salvation by works, but a clear and forceful statement that we can do nothing without God’s grace, and that this grace, accepted by faith, is what saves us.”
RS: But remember that Protestants and Trent define grace far differently, not to mention what it means to receive grace through faith. They are the same words, but we define them much differently.
Jeremy T quoting Kreeft: The split of the Protestant Reformation began when a Catholic discovered a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.
RS: Absolutely a horrid statement. Indeed Luther was a Roman Catholic, but he was shown the glory of the Gospel of grace alone in a way that it most certainly was not a Roman Catholic doctrine. You must remember that they tried to kill him over this doctrine. But also, the Word of God is the Word of God and it is not a Roman Catholic book. It is God’s book and belongs to no one else.
Jeremy T quoting Kreeft: “It can end only when both Protestants and Catholics do the same thing today and understand what they are doing: discovering a Catholic doctrine in a Catholic book.”
RS: Then may it never end. We must have the truth of God from the book of God, because after all it is the Gospel of the glory of God.
Erik Charter: Flipping through the channels this morning past several “church services” I heard Joel Osteen telling his massive flock that God would “give them what they deserve”. I immediately switched over to a show with a more accurate view of human depravity – “Mad Men”.
RS: He is such a nice man, but “No wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light.” I am glad to read that others are more repulsed by Olsteen than the world.
MM,
Did you know you are channeling John Jewel, the 16th century English reformer and Marian exile?
From Vol. I of “The Works of John Jewel” speaking about the line of Popes-
And for that cause they say, “We are Peter’s successors”: even as the Pharisees sometime said, “We be the children of Abraham.” But Jesus said unto them, “Put not your trust in such succession. For God is able even of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.”
Jack, it didn’t figure I originated the analogy, but I’m not familiar with Jewel. One could say that I peddle arguments for a living, so I habitually try to see the strength of opposing arguments, but the argument from continuity/longevity is a non-starter. If there was discernible continuity of doctrine from Christ through today, if the Greek Orthodox church didn’t have an equally valid argument, and if the history of the RCC shone like a star, I could begin to see why someone would believe in it as an argument. To me, it’s one more mystical leap and not an argument at all.
Luke 10:20 Nevertheless, do not rejoice in this, that the spirits are subject to you, but rejoice that your names are written in heaven.”
Revelation 20: 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then ANOTHER BOOK was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. 13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. 14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
My hope is not in the books but in the “another book”. The good works of Christians serve a doxological not judicial end.
Beale: “The final judgment that unbelievers will face in the future has been pushed back for believers to the cross in the first century. Believers have already passed through the great last judgment.”
John Fesko (ordained servant): “It is the wicked alone who are judged according to works because it is the dead who stand before the throne to be judged. The believer is openly acknowledged and acquitted NOT by a judgment according to works but through the resurrection of the outer man. The final judgment, therefore, is not a separate event following the resurrection but rather an aspect of the one organic event of resurrection-final judgment. The wrath of the final judgment that was due to the believer was poured out in the present upon Christ in his crucifixion. In this regard, then, we can say that believers have already passed through the final judgment in the crucifixion of Christ.”
Fesko: “Some argue that there must also be a “not yet” of justification, which entails some sort of judgment either on the basis of or according to works. N. T. Wright argues that there is a present and a future justification, and that the future justification is on the basis of the good works of the believer. Herman Ridderbos (1909-2007), on the other hand, argues that the final judgment is not on the basis of good works but that the good works are merely evidential of a faith that trusts in the completed work of Christ. Ridderbos’s formula is to be preferred over Wright’s, as Ridderbos preserves the solus Christus in justification as Paul does. Nevertheless, it seems
that both Wright and Ridderbos fail to consider fully the resurrection in this equation.”
Fesko: “Only those who are justified are raised according to their inner man. On the final day, the eschatological verdict that is passed in secret in the present, is revealed through the resurrection of the outer man. The resurrection reveals who is righteous. On the final day, when Christ returns, the righteous are immediately transformed. Again, without God uttering a single syllable, the righteous will be able to look around them and know immediately who has been declared righteous and who has not. There is no future aspect of justification but rather only the revelation of the verdict through the resurrection. Or, we may say that justification is ‘already’ and what remains “not yet” is the revelation of the verdict that has already been passed on the basis of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ, which the believer possesses by faith alone.”
see the entire chapter “Justification and the Final Judgment”, in Fesko, Justification: Understanding the Classic Reformed Doctrine
McMark: Fesko said this… Beale said this
RS: Rabbi X said this, but Rabbi Y said this. On the other hand, rabbi Z said this.
The word of God is absolutely clear and for more clear than the rabbis and most scholars.. There is no way for a soul to be justified before God but by grace alone through the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ and the imputed righteousness of Christ. However, whatever one wants to call it, there will be a judgment of deeds on the last day. Read the Scriptures. If you don’t like the word “justification” in this sense, even though that is how James used it in James and Paul in Timothy, then find another word. But we cannot deny the judgment of deeds on the final day and over and over Scripture says that it is those who are righteous or do good who will enter heaven and those who do evil will go into the eternal fire. There is no way that those who enter heaven do so on the basis of their righteousness or on the basis of their good deeds, but they are the ones that go there and this is mentioned so many times one must deal with what the text says. Some have thought it wise to look at a second form of justification, but evidently you don’t. But the judgment of deeds will happen and those who do good will enter heaven and those who don’t will enter eternal torment.
Matthew 16:27 “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and WILL THEN REPAY EVERY MAN ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS.
Romans 2:5 But because of your stubbornness and unrepentant heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who WILL RENDER TO EACH PERSON ACCORDING TO HIS DEEDS: 7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life; 8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation. 9 There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10 but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
1 Corinthians 4:5 Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God.
Galatians 6:8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.
Revelation 2:23 ‘And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds.
Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds.
Revelation 22:12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done.
John 5:29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.
2 Cor 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be recompensed for his deeds in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.
Titus 2:7 in all things show yourself to be an example of good deeds, with purity in doctrine, dignified,
Titus 2:14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
Matthew 25:31 “But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. 32 “All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on His right, ‘Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. 35 ‘For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me something to drink; I was a stranger, and you invited Me in; 36 naked, and you clothed Me; I was sick, and you visited Me; I was in prison, and you came to Me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer Him, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, and feed You, or thirsty, and give You something to drink? 38 ‘And when did we see You a stranger, and invite You in, or naked, and clothe You? 39 ‘When did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?’ 40 “The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ 41 “Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry, and you gave Me nothing to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave Me nothing to drink; 43 I was a stranger, and you did not invite Me in; naked, and you did not clothe Me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit Me.’ 44 “Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 “Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to Me.’ 46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God. 11 For it is written, “AS I LIVE, SAYS THE LORD, EVERY KNEE SHALL BOW TO ME, AND EVERY TONGUE SHALL GIVE PRAISE TO GOD.” 12 So then each one of us will give an account of himself to God.
Jeremy T; “On purgatory; the WCF (chapter XXXII) affirms that after we die we are then MADE perfect and then we enter into heaven. So when and where are we made perfect? According to the WCF it happens before we enter heaven? So, that begs the question, where does this happen? Catholics just call it purgatory, but the WCF acknowledges it nonetheless.”
Baltimore Catechism;
184. Who are punished in purgatory?
Those are punished for a time in purgatory who die in the state of grace but are guilty of venial sin, or have not fully satisfied for the temporal punishment due to their sins.
(a) There will be no purgatory after the general judgment.
(b) Since we do not know how long individual souls are detained in purgatory, there is need for persevering prayer for the repose of the souls of all those who die after reaching the use of reason, except those who are canonized or beatified by the Church.
(c) The souls in purgatory are certain of entering heaven as soon as GOD’S JUSTICE HAS BEEN FULLY SATISFIED.
So either Jeremy T didn’t learn his protestant soteriology or he doesn’t know his new catholic theology very well or he knows both very well, and decided to draw a parallel where he knew he’d be obfuscating the protestant understanding of the satisfaction of God’s retributive justice in Jesus Christ, but he doesn’t adhere the protestant understanding so his obfuscation is no skin off his back but is a terrible violation of the protestant conscience and this at it’s most soul-imperiling point.
And the beat goes on.
can someone help me refute Stellman’s quote here? ‘Having realized that I was using a few select (and hermeneutically debatable) passages from Romans and Galatians as the filter through which I understood everything else the New Testament had to say about salvation, I began to conclude that such an approach was as arbitrary as it was irresponsible.’
much appreciated.
Trent, I’d recommend reading the Old Testament. Lots of law, lots of sin, lots of sacrifices. Not a lot of infusion.
And also the Gospel of John, which is the ground of the Canons of Dordt.
It’s important to see the Catholic system as a whole. One might, maybe, eke out a case for infusion instead of imputation as Jason has done. But then one must swallow “infusion but not perfection”, followed by “free will”, followed by “penance as sacrament”, followed by “mortal and venial sins”, followed by “purgatory.”
These are all interlinked concepts, both theologically and historically.
John strikes at the root of it all: “Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.”
And that’s just the beginning.
Upcoming sainthood for…
Vatican to announce John Paul II ‘miracle’
http://tinyurl.com/pumdagc
Always loved this skit. Good humor is always grounded in some element of truth- -
Father Guido Sarducci:
To be made a saint in-a the catholic church, you have to have-a four miracles. That’s-a the rules, you know. It’s-a always been that-a. Four miracles, and-a to prove it. Well, this-a Mother Seton-now they could only prove-a three miracles. But the Pope-he just waved the fourth one. He just waved it! And do you know why? It’s-a because she was American. It’s all-a politics. We got-a some Italian-a people, they got-a forty, fifty, sixty miracles to their name. They can’t-a get in just cause they say there’s already too many Italian saints, and this woman comes along with-a three lousy miracles. I understand that-a two of them was-a card tricks.
Jack, I’m trying to consume a beverage here.