Dust-ups trickling down from recent Protestant conversions to Rome have revealed contrasting views of history. The Called To Communion view seems to involve a church in place — bulletins, pews, and all — just after Christ ascended to heaven. According to Bryan Cross:
[The Protestant convert to Rome] finds in the first, second and third (etc.) centuries something with a divine origin and with divine authority. He finds the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and its magisterial authority in succession from the Apostles and from Christ. He does not merely find an interpretation in which the Church has apostolic succession; he finds this very same Church itself, and he finds it to have divine authority by a succession from the Apostles. In finding the Church he finds an organic entity nearly two thousand years old with a divinely established hierarchy preserving divine authority.
If this is not a Roman Catholic version of Scott Clark’s QIRC I don’t know what is.
In addition to this non-Protestant version of primitivism (could it be that the Called To Communion guys are still affected by the primitivism that many of them knew when Pentecostals or Charismatics?) comes the argument that Protestants believe in ecclesiastical deism. Again, Bryan Cross is instructive (and wordy which is why I have not read the whole post). The logic runs like this. Protestantism came late, not until the sixteenth century. Protestants believed that Rome was a false church and had begun to apostasize about the time that Augustine’s body was buried. This leaves a gap of almost 1,000 years, between the right-thinking early church and the right-thinking Reformation church. In between, allegedly, God withdrew from his saving plan and planet earth was without a witness to (not hope) but Christ — hence, ecclesiastical deism. This is, by the way, the argument that Thomas More used against William Tyndale, a subject of a couple of papers by (all about) me while in grad school.
As effective as this argument might seem — and when I was studying More I found it intriguing — it is not very historical, at least in the way that people who regard the past as a distant country, a place not readily grasped, understand history. From a historical perspective, not to mention the way we understand ourselves, truths don’t simply fall out of the sky, pile up in neatly proportioned columns, steps, and arches, and remain intact for time immemorial. Instead, truths evolve (or develop if you don’t like Darwinian associations). This is true of the Bible. Redemptive history shows the unfolding of the gospel across millennia of salvation history, such that the seed of Genesis 3:15 does not blossom until 2 Samuel 7 which does not bear fruit until Luke 24 which then generates the harvest of Acts 2. The notion of development is also evident in our own lives. I am and am not the same person I was when I was 8. I loved my parents and the Phillies then (in that order) and I still love them but in very different ways (especially this season).
So if development is basic to history — to creation for that matter — why would church history be any different? The development that would make sense to a Protestant runs something like this. The church began among the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem and then spread to the center of the ancient church in Asia Minor and eventually to Europe. The Eastern Church remained relatively strong until the rise of Islam. The Western Church picked up the pieces of the Roman Empire and had fewer threats from Islam. Both of these churches, though different in culture and language, did not formally sever ties until the eleventh century. After 1054 Constantinople went into decline, Rome went the opposite way. The papal reforms of the eleventh century improved the authority of Rome. But even during the heyday of the papacy’s vigor — the high middle ages –Rome hardly controlled what was going on in the British Isles or France. Europe had no trains, not postal service, and little political consolidation. Trying to give coherence to Christianity was an impossible proposition until modernity gave us print, the nation-state, and effective transportation.
In these circumstances in the West Protestantism emerged. It was clearly different from the Eastern Church. The West’s understanding of salvation was always forensic — how am I right with God? — compared to the East’s which was more metaphysical — how am I one with God? Protestants were still asking the West’s question but found Rome’s answer insufficient. At the same time, Rome’s answer was hardly codified. It existed in any number of commentaries and summas. But Rome itself did not begin to rationalize or systematize its understanding of the gospel until the Council of Trent. Then Rome rejected the systems and reasons of Protestants with a fairly heavy hand. Then too Rome began to try to generate, through the activities of the Jesuits for starters, greater uniformity among the faithful and their clergy.
This view of Rome’s development is evident (at least to all about me) at a terrific website that includes a list of all the popes’ encyclicals and all the councils of the early and medieval churches. On the one hand, popes did not begin to send letters of counsel to their bishops until the thirteenth century. And then the encyclicals, which often pertained to matters of ordination and church-state relations, were infrequent. Between 1226, the first papal encyclical (or bull), and 1500 fifteen popes issued only twenty-two such communications. In contrast, Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1758) issued 44 encyclicals (and I don’t think he was writing about the First Pretty Good Awakening). It may be a stretch, but the correlation between the papacy’s consolidation of the Western church and the use of encyclicals hardly seems coincidental.
The same goes when it comes to General Councils. Here is the list of councils at Papal Encyclicals Online:
1. The First General Council of Nicaea, 325
2. The First General Council of Constantinople, 381
3. The General Council of Ephesus, 431
4. The General Council of Chalcedon, 451
5. The Second General Council of Constantinople, 553
6. The Third General Council of Constantinople, 680-681
7. The Second General Council of Nicaea, 787
8. The Fourth General Council of Constantinople, 869-70
9. The First General Council of the Lateran, 1123
10. The Second General Council of the Lateran, 1139
11. The Third General Council of the Lateran, 1179
12. The Fourth General Council of the Lateran, 1215
13. The First General Council of Lyons, 1245
14. The Second General Council of Lyons, 1274
15. The General Council of Vienne, 1311-12
16. The General Council of Constance, 1414-18
17. The General Council of Basel-Ferrara-Florence, 1431-45
18. The Fifth General Council of the Lateran, 1512-17
19. The General Council of Trent, 1545-63
20. The First General Council of the Vatican, 1869-70
21. Vatican II – 1962-1965
Notice that in the early era, councils were in the East, suggesting the weight of authority and structure among the Eastern Orthodox. Notice also that Rome does not begin to hold church councils until the twelfth century, the same time that the papacy is emerging as the religious authority in Europe.
What this means, for the sake of doctrinal development, is that Protestantism emerged out of and did not necessarily break with what was happening in Western Christianity. During the crisis days of the sixteenth century, humanists and Protestants all agreed that the papacy was an institution that needed serious reform. Protestants also began to offer up interpretations of the Bible that were certainly possible in the Roman church but were forbidden after Trent.
It is an arguable point, but the compatibility of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism in the late middle ages looks plausible if you read the only existing confession of faith approved by one of the general church councils (it is anyway the only one I can find since all the other church councils in the West appear to be devoted to questions of papal authority, schismatic bishops, and uncooperative emperors). Here is the Confession of Faith of Rome in 1215 at the Fourth Lateran Council:
We firmly believe and simply confess that there is only one true God, eternal and immeasurable, almighty, unchangeable, incomprehensible and ineffable, Father, Son and holy Spirit, three persons but one absolutely simple essence, substance or nature {1} . The Father is from none, the Son from the Father alone, and the holy Spirit from both equally, eternally without beginning or end; the Father generating, the Son being born, and the holy Spirit proceeding; consubstantial and coequal, co-omnipotent and coeternal; one principle of all things, creator of all things invisible and visible, spiritual and corporeal; who by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly, and then created human beings composed as it were of both spirit and body in common. The devil and other demons were created by God naturally good, but they became evil by their own doing. Man, however, sinned at the prompting of the devil.
This holy Trinity, which is undivided according to its common essence but distinct according to the properties of its persons, gave the teaching of salvation to the human race through Moses and the holy prophets and his other servants, according to the most appropriate disposition of the times. Finally the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, who became incarnate by the action of the whole Trinity in common and was conceived from the ever virgin Mary through the cooperation of the holy Spirit, having become true man, composed of a rational soul and human flesh, one person in two natures, showed more clearly the way of life. Although he is immortal and unable to suffer according to his divinity, he was made capable of suffering and dying according to his humanity. Indeed, having suffered and died on the wood of the cross for the salvation of the human race, he descended to the underworld, rose from the dead and ascended into heaven. He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.
There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved, in which Jesus Christ is both priest and sacrifice. His body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine, the bread and wine having been changed in substance, by God’s power, into his body and blood, so that in order to achieve this mystery of unity we receive from God what he received from us. Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church’s keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors. But the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity — namely Father, Son and holy Spirit — and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church. If someone falls into sin after having received baptism, he or she can always be restored through true penitence. For not only virgins and the continent but also married persons find favour with God by right faith and good actions and deserve to attain to eternal blessedness.
Protestant Reformers would have objected to parts of this confession especially in the last paragraph. But it is hard to see how with some Protestant clarifications this might have been a serviceable confession for both Rome and Geneva.
The contention here, then, is that justification came late to debates in the Western Church. Protestants initiated those debates and made proposals. Rome rejected those proposals outright at least at Trent. But prior to Trent Rome had no official position on justification. Protestantism accordingly developed within Roman Catholicism, which developed from relations with churches in the East, which developed from the ministry of Jesus and the apostles in Jerusalem. To say that what we have in Roman Catholicism is what the early church had in the first three centuries is like saying that some angel of God left some gold plates containing the final revelation buried underground somewhere in upstate New York.
192 Comments
Hi Jack,
You wrote;
In seminary (at RTS) my Church History Professor, Dr. Frank James III,
said in a lecture that Augustine would have been horrified by Luther’s
doctrine of forensic justification (faith alone). Would you say that
St. Augustine did not believe the gospel? St. Augustine has
a view of grace every bit as powerful as Luther, but it did not entail
forensic justification.
Where does Trent say you are “accursed”? Protestants have commonly understand the term “anathema” (which is what I believe you a referring to) in a way that ignores what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the term. In an article over at Catholic Answers Jimmy Akin clears up some misunderstandings about the term. He writes;
Since your question is fundamentally flawed (See Akin’s first point…”Sentencing someone to hell is a power that is God’s alone, and the Church cannot exercise it” I am unable to answer it.
Both Trent and Vatican II call those outside the Catholic Church towards unity in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Christ. I am not ducking your question, I’m just not God and therefore I cannot answer questions about whether a person is accursed or not.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
J.T.,
Why not quote the Pope rather than a fallible RTS professor? Your RTS professor’s statement is his opinion. Yet you present it as a fact, assign me the position of answering him (an over-used CtC tactic) and then ask the absurd question, did Augustine not believe the gospel? Since the doctrine of forensic justification had not yet been undermined, as it was in the latter medieval period, one wouldn’t expect full-throated discourses on the doctrine by the ECF. But it is hardly evident that Augustine held a view foreign to Luther’s, as the following words of Augustine show:
Augustine (354-430): “Having now to the best of my ability, and as I think sufficiently, replied to the reasonings of this author, if I be asked what is my own opinion in this matter, I answer, after carefully pondering the question, that in the Gospels and Epistles, and the entire collection of books for our instruction called the New Testament, I see that fasting is enjoined. But I do not discover any rule definitely laid down by the Lord or by the apostles as to days on which we ought or ought not to fast. And by this I am persuaded that exemption from fasting on the seventh day is more suitable, not indeed to obtain, but to foreshadow, that eternal rest in which the true Sabbath is realized, and which is obtained only by faith, and by that righteousness whereby the daughter of the King is all glorious within.” NPNF1: Vol. 1, Letter 36, 25.
Augustine (354-430): “Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?” The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification
3. Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God’s scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep. My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.
Augustine (354-430): “But what about the person who does no work (Rom 4:5)? Think here of some godless sinner, who has no good works to show. What of him or her? What if such a person comes to believe in God who justifies the impious? People like that are impious because they accomplish nothing good; they may seem to do good things, but their actions cannot truly be called good, because performed without faith. But when someone believes in him who justifies the impious, that faith is reckoned as justice to the believer, as David too declares that person blessed whom God has accepted and endowed with righteousness, independently of any righteous actions (Rom 4:5-6). What righteousness is this? The righteousness of faith, preceded by no good works, but with good works as its consequence.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 1, Vol. 11, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, ¡±7 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), p. 370.
As to accursed visa-vis anathema… You argue a point that is a diversion. Is Akin the voice of Rome? A doctrine is either heresy or not. A judgment on those who hold that heresy is either true or not. This is the problem with the whole “infallibility” deal with the Papacy. It really is all about development… massaging the historical record to continue the myth.
Apologies for the length of this comment, but it is in keeping with the CtC way…
Terry, here’s a piece of advice: if you want to claim continuity for neo-Cal’s, lose the prefix. I mean, I’ve heard of neo-orthodox. But neo-Roman Catholic?
Terry, or maybe there really isn’t anything new under the sun and “paleo” is just a way to say “not neo.”
Bryan, the point wasn’t about the glorification of saints in heaven but the infallibility of saints on earth–you know, where we all actually live. Your response circumvents the point that the latter is an astounding (incredible!) claim. To boot, it still leaves little difference between Roman claims of the Magisterium and Pentecostal claims about continuing revelation in latter day apostles.
Both Trent and Vatican II call those outside the Catholic Church towards unity in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church established by Christ.
But, Jeremy, V2 says “…the Catholic Church embraces us as brothers, with respect and affection…that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.” So, if we’re not outside the church but snuggled up inside, I still don’t know why we’re being called to communion.
But the irony is how Protestantism has a higher view of the church, as in WCF 25.2: “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.” The first mark of said church is sola fide. Those who deny sola fide are outside the visible church and so remain in eternal peril. It would seem that on Rome’s view Protestants have nothing to lose by not heeding Rome’s call to communion, but on Westminster’s view the stakes are higher for those who stay in her.
Jack,
I quote an RTS Professor to make the point that honest historians within Protestantism are willing to admit that a great disparity exists between Luther and St. Augustine’s teaching on justification.
The problem with the idea that Luther was in keeping with Augustine is that Luther himself said that he was moving away from Augustine and the Church Fathers on the question of Justification. Listen to what he says in his sermon on the gospel of John;
So was Luther mistaken in believing that he was moving away from Augustine and the Fathers?
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
J. T.-
So was Luther mistaken in believing that he was moving away from Augustine and the Fathers?
Quite possibly. Interestingly, you don’t interact with Augustine’s words concerning justification visa-vis the Reformational teaching on the same. What if we substitute Luther for Calvin or Cramner?
Jack,
We began this conversation when you wrote
Then I quote to you Luther talking about “the gospel” and you say that this is not a quote about justification. I’m not following, in your earlier comment you said the true gospel and justification by faith alone are inseparable.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
J.T.-
No, you bring up Luther not talking about the gospel, but how Augustine would have been horrified by Luther’s teaching on justification by faith alone. And then a quote on how Luther would not be inlfuenced by what he understood Augustine’s teaching to be on the gospel. You ask the “absurd” question as to whether Augustine believed the gospel or not. Diversion. But I answer your absurdity with Augustine’s words which you ignore. You then claim you are just responding to me. Please…
Still waiting to hear how Augustine would be horrified in light of his own words…
Jed,
I originally wrote:
You replied:
Then I replied:
To which you replied:
Here’s the point. Just because persons in the Church can sin and fall away, and just because *particular Churches* [e.g. the Church in Antioch, the Church in Corinth, etc.] can fall into heresy or apostasy, it does not follow that the universal Church (to which these individuals and particular Churches belong) can fall into heresy or apostasy. You seemed to think that if particular Churches can fall into heresy, then the universal Church must be able to fall into heresy, because particular Churches are “part of the universal body of Christ.” But, as I pointed out, although Christ is a member of the Body — He is the Head — just because a member can sin, it does not follow that Christ can sin. Likewise, just because members of the Church can sin, it does not follow that every member of the Church must be able to sin. For the same reason, just because individuals and particular Churches can fall into heresy or apostasy, it does not follow that the universal Church must be able to fall into heresy or apostasy. Similarly, and for the same reason, just because individuals and particular Churches can fall into heresy or apostasy, it does not follow that the Magisterium of the universal Church can fall into heresy or apostasy. Hence the dogma of infallibility is not refuted by pointing to the fact of individuals and particular Churches that have fallen into heresy or apostasy.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Jeremy T., is your point that the pope is infallible or is it that the early church fathers are the norm? If I find an example of a pope disagreeing with Origen, does your house of certainty crumble?
Bryan, have you ever considered that your argument runs parallel to hard core leftists? Just because Stalinism didn’t work out so well, Marxism is still golden.
In other words, nothing can challenge your argument, not because God is so great or because the pope is so infallible, but because YOU have defined the terms and make the qualifications.
I mean, shouldn’t you really be offering explanations from the pope or the magisterium instead of your own? Why should anyone, including the CTC crowd, believe you? Or does belief in papal infallibility make you infallible?
Bryan, by unbelievable I repeat what I said — is it conceivable that a human being is infallible? I can certainly understand why the creator of the universe would be infallible. But to attribute that to fallen human beings is as I say unb. If you believe it, all I can do is marvel.
As for infalliblity in heaven, why would there be a need? As I understand it, infallibility extends to teaching, not to conduct (as in impeccability). Why would the saints and angels need to teach anything? Does everyone get the charism in glory?
For what it’s worth, Protestants and RC’s both believe in infallibility. RC’s stress infallibility outside the canon of Scripture. Protestants stress the infallibility of Scripture. What is credible is that God revealed himself perfectly but human beings might have difficulties interpreting it. What is not credible is that many human beings interpreting Scripture and speculating on the saints and angels would come to a coherent body of truth and do so infallibly.
Come back to Protestantism, Bryan. We trust in God.
D.G.
No, the Church has done that. You can find most of what I’m saying in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I’m merely a man under authority.
Like I said, most of what I’m saying is right out of the CCC, or other magisterial documents. If you knew the CCC, you would already know the answers to most of the questions you’re asking me. And in my opinion, to be a Protestant, one should at least know what one is protesting.
If you thought I was infallible, you wouldn’t be disagreeing with me, unless you despise truth. So either you despise truth, or you don’t think I’m infallible, in which case your question is merely rhetorical.
This is like talking to Bultmann about miracles. He has no argument against them, but just can’t believe them; instead, he simply marvels at those who do believe them. My response to you is exactly what I would say to Bultmann: there is a God, and He isn’t merely tucked away in a closet of the universe somewhere. He gives supernatural gifts to men, and to His Body, the Church. He gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter, whose bones are under the altar in St. Peter’s Basilica, and whose 266th successor now sits on Peter’s chair, and holds those keys. We’re not ecclesial deists. Christ has promised that He will never leave or forsake His Church (Heb. 13:5). The union of God and man in the incarnation continues, even now, not just in heaven, but in the Church, which is His Body. That union is such that not only does persecuting her members mean persecuting Christ Himself (Acts 9:4), but her life is His supernatural life; by His gifts we are partakers of the divine nature, as Peter put it (2 Pet. 1:4). You would believe that Moses led the people out of Egypt, through many amazing signs and miracles, but find it impossible to believe that Christ the Good Shepherd through His Vicar on earth leads and guides His Church away from heresy? Christ is greater than Moses, and the New Covenant greater than the Old! This is God we are talking about; you should be prepared to believe incredible things, if you truly believe that God became man.
The charism of infallibility enjoyed by the magisterium here on earth is limited to teaching, but in heaven the infallibility enjoyed by all the saints (and the angels) extends to all thoughts and words and deeds; all are divinely protected from heresy, and apostasy. Otherwise, they wouldn’t have perfect happiness, because they wouldn’t have the perfect peace of knowing that they can never lose communion with God.
If it were just “many human beings,” with no “charism of truth,” as St. Irenaeus put it, sure. But if Christ made a promise to His Church, that He would give her the Spirit of truth, and guide her into all truth, then believing that she has been and is being protected from heresy is the most rational thing in the world to believe, given that Christ is God, and the Church is His Body, of which He is the Head.
I know you mean well Darryl, but I’ve discovered the pearl of great price, the Church Christ founded, and the treasure of truth within it. If you really trust God, then trust that He is guiding His holy Catholic Church, the one Protestants left in the sixteenth century, and come back to her. As Carl Trueman said to his fellow Protestants:
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
You know aside from all the ‘special pleading’ that’s required philosophically for the CTC crowd to pull off what they are trying to pull off, there’s a more basic maybe psychological ‘itch’ that they are scratching. By positing an visible, infallible magisterium and claiming that that in fact exists what they’ve done is bypass faith in Jesus and given the christian a way to walk by sight. Obviously, they will say Nuh-uh, but that’s in fact what occurs, orthopraxy. It’s also the appeal to sacraments, ornamentation, pageantry, a mass every day on the hour, all the way down to last rites with priests on the battlefield or at the hospital bed as someone dies. Now some of that is very comforting and pastoral and admirable, and I respect them for it, there’s more than a few protestant pastors who could take a lesson from this sort of familial engagement I grew up with and around. However, there is a point at which one’s faith really does slip into; ‘I believe what the church believes’. One, because Rome positions itself as that sort of unassailable authority and two; the ‘deposit’ is so large and says so many different things all classified with varying levels of adherence and qualification attached to it, that almost all RCer’s faith melts down into sacerdotalism, which of course Rome is structured and organized to provide. Anyway, it’s a bit of an aside, and I’m sure to a degree the proto-catholics have carved out their own communions to better reflect their ‘Word’ based predisposition. But, Rome really still is that Mass and that purposefully.
Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jack,
Tell me if I correctly understand what you’re saying. – In light of everything Augustine wrote you think he would have agreed that man is ultimately saved apart from love (agape) for God, which is the chief reason Rome objects to justification by faith alone. In fact, Pope Benedict said he affirms Luther’s JBFA if it is not to the exlusion of love for God.
I think we agree that Augustine articulated with great clarity the graciousness of God in salvation. It sounds like we both agree he believed the gospel (as you call the question I raise absurd). So did Augustine then believe a different gospel then Aquinas, who was the cheif influence on the doctrine of justification at Trent? It is impossible for Reformed people to insist that Trent condemned the gospel on the one hand and then affirm that Augustine and Aquinas believed the gospel on the other. Somewhere the chain has to break down.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate: Tell me if I correctly understand what you’re saying. – In light of everything Augustine wrote you think he would have agreed that man is ultimately saved apart from love (agape) for God, which is the chief reason Rome objects to justification by faith alone. In fact, Pope Benedict said he affirms Luther’s JBFA if it is not to the exlusion of love for God.
RS: Augustine would have not have said that man is saved apart from agape for God, but neither would Luther or Calvin. The problem is where you place love in the process. The justification that the Bible speaks of is when sinners are declared just by God based on Jesus Christ alone. Christ has suffered what they deserved (propitiation) and the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner. The soul that has true faith is a soul that is united to Christ and is one with Him. One is saved in order to love to the glory of God, but their love does not add to their justification because that was already completed in Christ. The grace of God is such that it saves sinners based on who God is and what Christ has done rather than anything that the sinner does. The grace of God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace as the motive and does not need anything in the sinner or apart from the sinner to act. In fact, the only thing in the sinner is sin which is not a motive to save the sinner, but what the sinner needs to be saved from. Your addition of love to the Gospel is actually an enormous addition which in fact is such a subtraction from grace alone that it denigrates the completed work of Christ. It is adding a work to grace which makes grace no longer to be grace.
Jeremy T: I think we agree that Augustine articulated with great clarity the graciousness of God in salvation. It sounds like we both agree he believed the gospel (as you call the question I raise absurd). So did Augustine then believe a different gospel then Aquinas, who was the cheif influence on the doctrine of justification at Trent? It is impossible for Reformed people to insist that Trent condemned the gospel on the one hand and then affirm that Augustine and Aquinas believed the gospel on the other. Somewhere the chain has to break down.
RS: It is not impossible to insist that Trent did not understand true grace and so did not understand either Augustine or Aquinas. The chain breaks at the point of the writers of Trent who wanted to preserve the power of Rome. However, the issue is what Jesus and His apostles wrote in the Scriptures.
Bryan, I do have good reasons for not being RC. My only comfort in life and death is that I belong to my faithful savior Jesus Christ. I don’t need his church to be infallible to know that he is faithful. And you’re in denial to think that your church is faithful. Here’s something that New Advent posted:
Now you’ll say not everyone in the church has the correct doctrine, only the pope. But your reason for going to Rome is an infallibility that eliminates the problems of Protestant incoherence and opinions. So again you have infallibility and the same problem that Protestants have — great misunderstandings and misconduct in Rome. So your account of the faith only works in the ivory tower of CTC.
Also, if everything you say comes from the Catechism (which catechism) why not just quote the catechism rather than link to your posts. I’m betting the catechism is shorter.
Sean, ding ding ding.
Richard Smith,
You write;
Catholicism makes a distinction between justification and an increase in justification. Love for God (nor anything else of course) is required in initial justification. Once brought into state of grace, however, we are then called to abide in Christ (John 15) which entails agape for God. This is not adding to the gospel. John 15 is part of the gospel.
One of the problems we’re bumping into here is that you hold to the Calvinist idea of once saved always saved (never before articulated before Calvin’s Institute’s). This makes it impossible to take seriously passages like John 15 where a continual relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate:
Catholicism makes a distinction between justification and an increase in justification.
RS: True, but how can one increase what Christ has already accomplished? That demonstrates that you are not relying on what Christ has already accomplished, that is, the perfect righteousness He has earned and then imputed to those He is united with.
Jeremy T: Love for God (nor anything else of course) is required in initial justification.
RS: But Christ loved God perfectly and so a perfect love is required in order to be declared just at all. It would appear that you are insisting that God accepts less than perfect love.
Jeremy T: Once brought into state of grace, however, we are then called to abide in Christ (John 15) which entails agape for God. This is not adding to the gospel. John 15 is part of the gospel.
RS: Once again, as you clearly say, our abiding is necessary for our justification. That shows that you believe in justification by works of some kind and in some way.
Jeremy T: One of the problems we’re bumping into here is that you hold to the Calvinist idea of once saved always saved (never before articulated before Calvin’s Institute’s). This makes it impossible to take seriously passages like John 15 where a continual relationship with Christ is necessary for salvation.
RS: The doctrine of Calvinism is not once saved always saved, but that God will graciously work perseverance in those He declares just on the basis of the finished work of Christ. Perseverance is best expressed by God perseveringly working perseverance in His people by grace. Those who have eternal life dwelling in them will indeed want to do good works, but as John 15 tells us we can do nothing (good or spiritual) apart from Him. Since the good we do comes from Him, why would it add to our justification and our credit?
D.G.
Your quotation is not even in Scripture, but comes from a document authored by men who were not validly ordained, and had no authority to speak for the Church, and yet you [seemingly] trust that document as if it is infallible, while claiming that you don’t need the Church to be infallible. The question, however, is not what you think you need (or what I think I need). The question is what Christ did, when He set up His Church.
As for the quotation from the New Advent article, I have no idea what your point is in quoting it. You seem to think that it indicates that the Catholic Church is not faithful. But you don’t explain where or how you think it indicates such a thing.
No, my reason for becoming Catholic was discovering that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. If the Catholic Church were not the Church Christ founded, then it wouldn’t have this charism of infallibility, and in that case its claim to infallibility would be false, as would any supposed unitive benefit procured by its alleged ‘infallibility.’
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan Cross: No, my reason for becoming Catholic was discovering that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. If the Catholic Church were not the Church Christ founded, then it wouldn’t have this charism of infallibility, and in that case its claim to infallibility would be false, as would any supposed unitive benefit procured by its alleged ‘infallibility.’
RS: So you became Catholic simply by thinking you discovered that it was the Church Christ founded? Even if we assumed that was true, any unregenerate and natural man could come to that conclusion. There is nothing spiritual about that conclusion. So once a person comes to the conclusion that Roman Catholicism is the Church Christ founded (but I thought it would be Jerusalem Catholicism to be accurate), one must assume that the present Roman Catholicism is the same and taught the same. But again, a natural man could believe that. But what the natural man cannot accept is the things of the Spirit of God. For example, it is the Spirit of God who must regenerate dead souls and He does that as He pleases and not as the parents of the priests please. It is a sovereign and spiritual work that only the spiritual man can understand much of. Your view of Church is far too natural.
I Cor 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God,
13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
15 But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one.
16 For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.
Bryan, my point in quoting the article is that it takes forgiveness and mercy as not something we find in Christ but virtues that believers must embody. So instead of looking to Christ for mercy, this person looks at forgiveness as a virtue. The more important point is that the charism of infallibility has not prevented error in Roman Catholicism.
D.G.
You wrote:
Monsignor Pope (the author of the article) is not at all claiming that forgiveness and mercy are not found in Christ, nor does he make such a claim in his article. He is saying in the paragraph in question that (a) unless we forgive others, we will not be forgiven by God, and (b) that unless we humble ourselves before God and become like children so as to receive mercy and forgiveness from Him, we cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven. And of course Jesus Himself said those very things.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Richard,
You write;
Jesus is very clear
If you wil not hear Scripture you will certainly not hear me. Let’s end this discussion for now.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Bryan wrote:
(a) unless we forgive others, we will not be forgiven by God, and (b) that unless we humble ourselves before God and become like children so as to receive mercy and forgiveness from Him, we cannot enter the Kingdom of heaven.
Me:
And just who can pull that off perfectly (hint, not you and not me)? For if not always perfectly performed, then Scripture presents us with a real problem. And there are no mention of mulligans ala the purgatory scheme in Scripture.
Paul wrote – Galatians 3:
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”12 But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit[e] through faith.
Me:
It seems, in your system, we need a Savior and then, once initially forgiven, we are handed off to the RCC as our life coach and trainer in order, moment by necessary moment, to make us worthy of salvation (eradicate sin from every square inch of our being). Only there will never be enough moments and the RCC cannot cleanse one from sin nor make one righteous.
I think those who hold to the RCC system have too low a view of sin, too high a view of their own righteousness, too low a view of the Law and the holiness of God.
Jeremy Tate: Richard, You write; “Once again, as you clearly say, our abiding is necessary for our justification. That shows that you believe in justification by works of some kind and in some way”
Jeremy T: Jesus is very clear
If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned. (John 15:5-11 ESV)
If you wil not hear Scripture you will certainly not hear me. Let’s end this discussion for now.
RS: Jeremy, I hear Scripture and I hear you. They are two voices that contradict each other. Indeed a person must abide in Christ, but Christ must also abide in that person for that person to abide in him. The text also does not say that a person must abide in Christ so that a person may contribute to his justification or what the person is doing will contribute to his justification. In fact, what you are writing denies the possibility of true love. Only a person can truly love because only then can a person be free of working for salvation and so work out of true love. So I do hear the words of Scripture, but I read you only hear Scripture as mediated and interpreted for you by a system of works. In the name of justification with love you are denying any possiblity of love for God. Be careful of what you are doing and pray for the Spirit to give you understanding.
Richard,
Exactly
That’s why we do NOTHING to get justified (into a state of grace) Once justified, however, we “MUST” (as you say) abide in Christ. Well said.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy Tate quoting RS: Indeed a person must abide in Christ, but Christ must also abide in that person for that person to abide in him.
Jeremy T: Exactly That’s why we do NOTHING to get justified (into a state of grace) Once justified, however, we “MUST” (as you say) abide in Christ. Well said.
RS: Something tells me that we are still not speaking on the same lines. For example, a person that has truly been declared just on the basis of the propitiatiory work of Christ fully satisfied the wrath of the Father (so no purgatory needed) and on the basis of His imputed righteousness can abide in Christ in love. But a person that has not been declared just as stated in the previous sentence, that person cannot abide in Christ in love. That person is abiding for other reasons. As long as the kind of justification and Purgatory you speak of is future, you cannot truly abide in Christ in love. We must abide, but it is by the grace of Christ and the power of indwelling love that we do.
Jeremy, preservation is just as much by God’s grace alone as is justification.
Richard,
Again, you are saying a great deal that if fully compatable with Catholic theology.
Again, exactly. This sounds Catholic enough to me.
If we do nothing to get justified (initial justificatin) then why would we abide in Christ for any reason other than love for God? Look at 1996 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church;
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Bryan, they should make you pope. You know what everyone thinks.
Zrim,
You wrote;
This is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church teaches!!! Look at 1992 in the Catholic Catechism;
How does he make us just? “…by the power of his mercy.” We are sanctified and preserved by God’s grace alone. Our ability to “abide” in Christ comes from the grace of God at work within us. Yet, we are not passive as the Reformed insist. Because the grace of God is EFFECTIVE GRACE, it changes our will so we willingly abide in Him as true sons and daughters.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Jeremy, I don’t want to rehearse the substance of Protestant-Catholic differences on grace and faith in relation to justification, sanctification, and preservation. But in this latest remark of yours, coupled with your citing of VII and the rather clear language that we Prots are brothers who are actually members of the RCC, maybe you’re ready now to respond my hitherto unanswered question: if we’re really on the same page and brethren then why are we being called to communion? That makes no sense. But admitting to the differences and calling us to repentance would.
Zrim,
There are major differences for sure. One difference, however, is not that Reformed theology holds to a more robust view of God’s grace than Catholic theology. We are saved by grace alone. I trust that my Reformed friends believe this. It would be a step towards unity to trust that the Catholic Church means it as well. It is dogmatically taught. Salvation is a gift.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Someone has got to take a hard stand againt Catholic deception and grace cloaked in self-righteousness. Someone as smart and yet subtlely and deceptively deceived as Jason Stellman has been, well, it is just mind-boggling that it happened. It all has to do with who is elect and who is not elect. Do we trust in Christ’s imputed righteosness or not?
Jeremy, but a repeal of Trent’s anathema of sola fide would do wonders to prove a robust view of salvation as a gift. Until then, when your church says that one is only as justified as he is sanctified it sounds an awful lot like my former semi-Pelagian Bible church pastor who said of grace, “Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.”
John,
I’d be happy to argue from Scripture alone that my views about the gospel are true. In fact, I plan to do that a lot in the future. But for you to show I’m “deceived” you’ll need to do more than just state it.
JJS: I’d be happy to argue from Scripture alone that my views about the gospel are true. In fact, I plan to do that a lot in the future. But for you to show I’m “deceived” you’ll need to do more than just state it.
RS: But only the Holy Spirit can give true illumination as opposed to tradition and rites. It is not just a battle of intellects, it is a spiritual battle.
Great, more proto-catholic invention. I think I’ll pass. You proto-catholics let me know when you are 20 years in.
There’s that open-mindedness you’re all so famous for!
Bryan, JJS and Bizarro Jeremy,
99% of what I’m reading is both sides either asserting that which is disputed or misrepresenting one’s opponent. Besides sheep-stealing, what do y’all see as the essence of the disagreement?
Also, I would submit that Protestants perpetually enjoy the same level of certainty as Catholic apologists prior to their vindication by council or Magisterium. Of what did their certainty consist prior to infallible settlement of the dispute? After the infallible settlements, does their confidence change from that which arises from reflection and argument to that which arises from faith in the Magisterium’s charism of infallibility?
In the hope that DGH realizes I’m Presbyterian,
Jeremy McLellan
Please JJS,
You haven’t even been received into communion and you’re gonna start telling us what Rome is. Trust me, I know more about Rome than you do. There’s that hipster, soul-patch, beatnik arrogance.
Who said anything about Rome? John called me “deceived” about the gospel without even having heard any argument from Scripture about it from me, so I offered to explain myself.
PS – Guess how many hipsters like me it takes to screw in a light bulb? On second thought, never mind. It’s a pretty obscure number, I doubt you’ve heard of it.
Jason,
There’s that open-mindedness you’re all so famous for!
I don’t know what’s going on for you. But, there are any number of slights, condescensions, and outright misrepresentations toward Protestantism that have been offered up by the RCC brethren in the discussions on this blog and GB. I’ve yet to read of your objection to those. You keep noting the sins of your former Reformed brethren while over-looking that of your new RC friends. I’m not trying to by mean or harsh, but it comes across as a bit of whining. What is going on?
These discussions involve serious topics… life and death subjects, one must say. That frustration breaks out in an inappropriate remark every now and then is a surprise? Apparently, so much so, that you take an off-remark, here and there, and use it to color all of the Reformed in a negative light? The pot and the kettle come to mind. Just wondering why…
best regards…
Ok Jason,
You’re looking to be received into Rome, but you’re gonna make argument for your own journey apart from that reception and confirmation. I apologize.
Zrim,
How much have you read of Trent? Have you read all 25 sessions? Have you read the 6th session on Justification? Have you only read the Anathema’s? Like any other body of writing, context is key, you can’t just read the Anathema’s and assume you have understood Trent. Trent is not your semi-Pelagian Bible church pastor. The Catholic Church condemns semi-pelagianism. See here
Protestants get their own identity by relation to the Catholic Church. She is the one you are protesting. This reality is inescapable. She preached salvation by grace alone for 1500 years before the Protestant experiment began and will continue to preach grace until our Lord returns. If you want to talk imputation that is one thing, but salvation by grace alone is fully Catholic.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
Here you go Zrim, still trying to figure out this cool hyper link thing
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/08/is-the-catholic-church-semi-pelagian/