In this comment, Jason began a biblical exposition of his understanding of salvation. I want to interact with this on the level he’s been asking. So, here goes. Jason’s words are block-quoted, and my commentary follows.
My basic thesis would be something like this: The gospel is the teaching that, because of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ and subsequent gift of the Spirit, the love of God is shed forth in sinners’ hearts, enabling them to love God and neighbor, thereby fulfilling the law and gaining eternal life.
I could actually agree with a fair bit of this summary. I just think it is incomplete at one part, and wrong at one part. It is incomplete when he says that “the love of God is shed forth in sinners’ hearts.” This is true, but God’s work in the gospel is not only shed forth in sinners’ hearts, but also shown outside of us on the cross itself. Now, Jason does say “because of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ and subsequent gift of the Spirit.” However, the way it is worded there makes it seem as though those things are foundational to the Gospel, as opposed to being part of the Gospel itself. Most of the instances of the word “Gospel” that occur in the New Testament are not instances that define what the Gospel is. We must, of course, beware of the word-concept fallacy here. Definitions of the Gospel often occur without the word “Gospel” being present. But one of the most important instances of the word “Gospel” occurring in a context that also defines what that Gospel is is 1 Corinthians 15. Paul talks about the Gospel preached, in verse 1, which the Corinthians received, and by which they were saved. Then, verse 3 defines what that Gospel is: the propitiatory death of Christ (v. 3), His burial and resurrection (v. 4). Then all of Christ’s appearances post-Resurrection are listed next (verses 5-8) as still being part of that Gospel. His definition of the Gospel doesn’t really end until verse 11. Verse 12 starts the discussion about one particular aspect of the Gospel: Christ’s resurrection. So, the Gospel is not just stuff that occurs inside of us, but also stuff that occurs outside of us. I’m sure, at this point, that Jason would agree. Where we would disagree is in the “how” of the application. We would both agree, even, that there are definite internal aspects to salvation applied. God does change us internally by shedding forth His love inside of us. I would just argue that such is sanctification, not justification. More on that later. The part of his definition that is simply wrong is that the internal work of God inside of us is the basis for gaining eternal life. I would argue that it is the evidence of justification, and is therefore the necessary result of justification, not part of justification itself.
First, I would insist—contra some Reformed guys like VanDrunen—that in order to learn the gospel we need to start with Jesus and then look for his teaching echoed in the other NT writers (rather than saying that we should begin with Paul). So keep that in mind: Jesus gets the first and last word.
This is hermeneutically wrong, I’m afraid. Jesus does get the first and last word. But ALL the Bible is the Word of God, the communication of God, which He gave to us in Jesus Christ, Who is not only the subject of revelation, but also the object of that same revelation. Jesus spoke just as much through Paul’s words as He did through His own on earth (Hebrews 1 shows this conclusively, equating all of the “last days” revelation with the revelation of the Son). So, Jesus’ words in the Gospels are not somehow more (or less!) fundamental than the words of Paul. The reason that Reformed guys like VanDrunen argue for starting with Paul is simply that Paul is MUCH more full on the topic of justification than Jesus was. Paul has the most complete discussions of justification. So, wouldn’t it make sense to go to the most developed place where such doctrine is taught? When Jesus preaches about the Gospel, He primarily ties it to the Kingdom of God. And, in preaching to Israel, that makes a great deal of sense. He is telling them that what they were expecting has now broken into history. However, Jesus devotes much less time than Paul did to the discussion of how the gospel is applied to us.
On several occasions Jesus taught that love of God and neighbor fulfill the law and prophets (the golden rule in Matt. 7, his answer to the scribe in Matt. 22). In fact, in Mark’s account of the question about the greatest commandment, the scribe, after hearing Jesus’ answer, goes on and says that Jesus spoke truly, and that love for God and neighbor are more important than sacrifices and burnt offerings. Jesus then encourages him that he is “not far from the kingdom of God” (which leads me to believe that Jesus’ intent was not to use the dual command of love as a first-use, pedagogical tool that the scribe should have realized was impossible to keep. This love, I think, is the “righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees” that Jesus spoke of in the sermon on the mount. In other words, that righteousness is not just more exact obedience than they offered already (as if), but a qualitatively different kind of obedience, one flowing from the heart, wrought by the NC gift of the Spirit.
No Reformed person I know of would disagree that love of God and neighbor fulfills the law and the prophets. We would merely qualify that by quoting Galatians 3:10, which quotes, in turn, Deuteronomy 27:26: “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.” Incidentally, that verse certainly seems to see the law as a list of things to do or not do. Verses 11 and 12 of that same chapter (Galatians 3) contrast the two ways of justification: the hypothetical way of doing the law that no one can do (verse 11), and the way of faith (verse 12). The reason no one can do the first way is verse 10: no one can keep the entire law, and we are under a curse if we do not do all those things. But the essence of all those things IS love. The final kicker, and the essence of the Gospel as applied to us, is verse 13 of that chapter. The curse of verse 10 comes on Christ in verse 13 by a vicarious substitution (“having become a curse for us”). Now, having been justified (and I would argue, at the same time as justification, but not included in it), we also receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (verse 14). That the words of the law CANNOT be limited to boundary markers, or ceremonial works of the law (like the NPP and the RCC have affirmed) is proven from the all-inclusive nature of verse 10: “ALL things written in the book of the law.” Not merely some things, but all things. Of course, circumcision is included. But the works of the law are not limited to circumcision. In other words, to get back to the main point: no one can love God as they ought. Love for God and neighbor in this chapter of Galatians is equivalent to works of the law, which equals the way of justification that is not possible, because we are under the curse. In short, we cannot be justified by our love for God and neighbor. That the law does indeed have a pedagogical use in this chapter is confirmed by verses 23ff. To limit the law to boundary markers or ceremonial aspects of the law simply doesn’t work in verse 24. Love of God is only possible when we are sanctified, which means that justification must happen some other way. Faith in Christ, which is everywhere in Galatians 3 contrasted with works, is what justifies.
As to Mark’s account of the scribe, the passage proves too much. The scribe described the Roman Catholic position on love for God and neighbor (and Reformed, I might add!) fairly accurately. So why is he described as “not far from?” Why is he not described as “hitting the nail on the head?” If that is what is required for justification, then he has it right. The reason is that one element is missing in the scribe’s reasoning: how you get into the kingdom is not the same as how you live once you are in it. What the scribe described, then, is what life looks like in the kingdom of God. But how you get there is a different thing. So, it is not actually necessary for the Reformed view to look at this description of law as purely first-use pedagogical. The scribe is also describing what the Reformed would talk about as the third use of the law. It was the first use of the law that the scribe was missing, while he was describing the third use.
As to Christ’s statement in the SM about a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, I agree that it exceeds in kind what the Pharisees and the scribes tried to do, and I can even agree that such obedience is from the Holy Spirit imbuing us with that ability. I disagree that this is the way we are justified (which is hardly in the context). Jesus’ words have to do with what is necessary, not what is causative. This is especially true when He talks about entering the kingdom of heaven. Yes, we do not enter the kingdom of God without works. But we do NOT enter the kingdom of God BECAUSE OF our works, either. Turretin describes it well when he says that our good works are necessary for salvation not in a causative sense, but in a resultative sense. They necessarily follow. So, they are necessary. But they do not cause our salvation. Neither does our love for God or neighbor. Our good works are the result of God’s sanctifying work inside of us. And, to give a glimpse of where I’m going in the next few posts: the passages that connect good works to the final judgment are evidentiary in nature, not causative. The world will want to know whether our faith is genuine. At that point, God will trot out our works and show the world that our faith was genuine, and that the verdict already rendered in our lifetimes is a true verdict. That’s what our works will do on Judgment Day.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 3:14 pm
I appreciate this, Lane. I will try to offer some thoughts later tonight.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 16, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Lane,
Your discussion after the second block quote is quite thought provoking. Enough to make “The Origin of Paul’s Religion,” the book I am now reading. The relationship between Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching could really use more fleshing out in your future posts. I will be reading.
Peace,
AB
paigebritton said,
August 16, 2012 at 5:17 pm
Re. the priority of Jesus’ vs. Paul’s theology, Jesus’ teaching during his in-the-flesh ministry was limited by chronology, as it were: he was still speaking into an “OT” world, pre-Resurrection and pre-Pentecost. The meaning behind the revelation of the Word made flesh was thus necessarily something that, for the most part, had to follow along historically (i.e., in the apostolic ministry).
Dave Houf said,
August 16, 2012 at 5:41 pm
Really glad for this thoughtful and necessary interaction, and am looking forward to more. The Turretin reference is most excellent.
Thank you.
Dave Houf,
Member, Christ Community Presbyterian Church West Hartford CT
Andrew Preslar said,
August 16, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Paige,
By most accounts, the Gospels were written sometime later than the Epistles of St. Paul. In any case, I don’t think that the Son of God was limited by chronology. The deity of Christ is an important hermeneutical principle, as is the time of the compostion of the written Gospels. Both of these considerations mitigate against your claim about the “meaning behind” the Incarnation, as applied to the hermeneutical question of where we find that meaning most fully expressed in the NT writings.
Of course, the immediate historical context in which he lived and taught and finally accomplished the work fo salvation has to be carefully attended to when interpreting the words of Jesus. But the same is true for the letters of Paul. It seems to me, following the thoughts of others, that the reason that Paul spent so much time on justification is that he was dealing with immediate historical circumstances; i.e., the Judaizer controversy. Once this was in abeyance, and the separation of Christians from the synagogues was nearly complete, there was not as much need to focus on justification by faith, which is not a major theme of the Gospels or of the early patristic period. That question had been settled by the clear inclusion of the Gentiles in the Israel of God.
Andrew
sean said,
August 16, 2012 at 6:51 pm
Andrew,
Do you hold to the historical-critical method of interpreting the scriptures?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 16, 2012 at 6:59 pm
Andrew, how would you respond to these three theses:
(1) Paul’s immediate historical circumstances necessitated a clear presentation of justification and its distinction from non-justification. I’m thinking here of Romans in particular. Therefore, Paul’s words receive a conceptual priority because of their clarity.
(2) Jesus’ teachings on justification were delivered to an audience every bit as tied to the Pharisees as Paul’s audiences were — more, in fact — so that we should look to Jesus’ historical circumstances and not the Gospel writers’ circumstances as the context for his remarks.
(3) And in fact, Jesus delivered many of his remarks using parables that deliberately concealed truth from those who did not wish to hear. We should therefore be wary of taking Jesus’ words literally and thus using them as a framework to interpret Paul.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Lane,
I know I’m not going to be able to keep up, but I will try. I’ll start by offering some thoughts about your first section. I may not get to write more until later tonight. I wrote:
And you responded:
Well, no one-sentence summary is complete, is it? That’s what makes it a summary. But to allay any concerns, yes, I do think that the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ are part of the gospel (!).
Of course. I would be curious to know if you agree with this rule when applied to justification, since you argue later that Paul talked a lot more about justification than Jesus did. I would argue (and eventually will) that there are heaps of passages in the gospels that deal with the basis according to which sinners receive their eternal inheritance. And I see no reason, given your insistence that we beware of the word-concept fallacy, why these passages should not be included in the discussion. I’m getting ahead of myself though. I’ll address the Jesus/Paul thing later.
Yep. This is easy so far!
I know that is your position, Lane, so I would be curious to hear you respond to the biblical evidence I adduce both in the comment you’re responding to as well as in the others I have posted here.
For example, I asked Jeff the following:
There are loads of passages in the NT that directly connect our Spirit-wrought deeds of love and mercy to our inheriting eternal life in a causal way. So it seems to me that you can’t just “disagree” with my position, you need to demonstrate why those verses aren’t saying what I think they are.
Bryan Cross said,
August 16, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Lane,
Of course I wouldn’t presume to speak for Jason, but something you said above turned on a paradigmatic difference quite similar to the one discussed recently. You wrote:
You seem to be claiming that during this present life, agape within the believer cannot fulfill the law, because (a) Gal 3:10 teaches that no one can keep the entire law, and we are under a curse if we do not keep the entire law, (b) Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, (c) the works of the law referred to in Gal 3:10 refer to more than boundary markers, on account of Gal 3:23ff, (d) love of God is only possible when we are sanctified, which means that we must be justified in some other way, and (e) everywhere in Gal 3, faith in Christ is contrasted with works, and it is faith that justifies.
Here’s another way to view the Galatians 3 passage, seeing it through a different paradigm.
From this point of view, St. Paul is here speaking of persons operating ἐξ ἔργων νόμου, that is, persons operating not out of the living faith by which the law is written on the heart, but operating in relation to the law (and the Mosaic Law is primarily in view here) as something external through which they can obtain justice before God by material observance, through their own efforts. For such persons, the law is (to them) a curse, precisely because they cannot abide by all the things written in it. For those having the law only externally, the law is a burden, and a curse.
Here too “by the law” is referring to life under the law-as-external. The law in that sense is not of faith. That in fact is the way it is not of faith, by being external, whereas living faith contains the law written on the heart (as explained in the agape paradigm post). The law-as-external offers the promise of life to those who keep it, but it does not empower anyone to keep it. (cf. Gal 3:21)
Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law not by abolishing the law, but by receiving the curse of death though He Himself had perfectly kept the law. In this way, the curse of the law has been removed for those united to Him (Gal 3:27), so that the same blessing of living faith given to Abraham, by which he was declared righteous in Gen 15:6, is offered to Jews and Gentiles alike under the New Covenant. This blessing is the gift of the Spirit, received through living faith (Gal 3:14), and with it the same righteousness Abraham had by faith, before being circumcised. By receiving the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, we enter into a sonship relationship with God our Father (Gal 4:7).
In this way of understanding the passage, St. Paul in Gal 3:10-11 is not claiming that agape within believers does not fulfill the law and is not righteousness, because he is speaking in those verses of persons for whom the law is only external. Moreover, if justification is by living faith, that is, faith informed by agape, then it does not follow that justification must happen in some other way than by infusion of agape. If infused agape is justification and sanctification, then justification does not have to precede the initial sanctification of infused agape at regeneration. This understanding of the passage also does not depend in any way on the works being restricted here to covenant boundary markers. To receive circumcision as though necessary for salvation is to deny the New Covenant, and thereby place oneself back under the Mosaic Covenant (Gal 5:3). The problem St. Paul is addressing is not fundamentally a boundary marker problem, but a relation to the law-as-external, rather than in friendship with God as Father, with living faith in one’s heart. And finally, this reading also makes sense of St. Paul’s dichotomy of faith and works with respect to justification, because he is speaking of initial justification, and because the works in view are those done by persons without living faith, that is, persons for whom the law is only external. Such works, of course, cannot in any way contribute to justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Jason (#8): Sorry, that question did … ermm… merit an answer. I’ll pop it into the other thread.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Lane,
I wrote:
And you responded:
I think you’re reacting against something I didn’t say. Nowhere did I intend to imply that “all the Bible is not the Word of God” or that “Jesus’ words are more fundamental than Paul’s.”
The point I am making is much more simple, and much less sinister, than that. All I am saying is that Jesus said a bunch of stuff, and that the apostles built upon that stuff in the letters they wrote. That’s it.
So if something like the imputation of alien righteousness is essential to the gospel such that there is no true gospel without it, then we should expect Jesus to have taught it and all the NT writers to have expounded on his teaching (rather than Jesus, Peter, James, and John to have omitted it, while Paul only mentioned it in a couple places). If you think that is a false characterization, then show me how.
You’re just begging the question here, not to mention possibly committing the word/concept fallacy you warned about earlier. I would maintain that Jesus addressed the issue of the causal basis by which sinners gain eternal life all over the place (albeit without using the word “justification.” That said, though, the only time he did use it in a soteriological, day-of-judgment context he expressly ascribed justification to our words, with no mention of faith at all). So to say that Paul provides the “most complete discussion of justification” is to assume what is itself in dispute.
If I were to say the same type of thing about Paul that you say about Jesus—for example, that Paul primarily ties justification to the unique historical issue of boundary markers and table fellowship—what would you say? My guess is you’d complain that I am being evasive by hiding behind a supposedly unique historical issue, and refusing to see the broader application of those texts beyond that specific question. And you’d be right.
So I am not arguing that the red letters are more inspired than the black ones. I am simply saying that there is a LOT more data outside of Paul’s corpus than within it dealing with the relationship between our Spirit-wrought works and our gaining eternal life. From where I sit, it is you, and not me, who are pitting one NT writer against the others.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 16, 2012 at 8:41 pm
Sean (re #6),
I think that the historical-critical method is valuable, but by itself is dangerous. Also, in practice if not always in theory, practitioners of historical-critical exegesis often load the definition of “historical” with philosophical baggage (e.g., methodological naturalism) such that the “critical” aspect of their work belies its name, and becomes an exercise in hermeneutical suspicion.
Jeff (re #7),
(1) Paul was indeed careful to make distinctions, in response to confusion, which results in writing that is sometimes more analytical than the Gospel narratives. But I think that both Paul and the Evangelists were in essence engaged in Covenant theology. The heart of the Covenant, and hence the heart of our salvation in the Messiah of Israel, is most clearly expressed, in my opinion, in the Gospels. It is tempting to suppose that dialectic is more theologically rich than narrative, but I find, upon careful and sustained reading of the biblical narratives, that this is not the case. Remember, these Four are not mere chronicles. They are carefully constructed narratives expressive of a definitely Christian theology–which stands to reason, considering the Subject of each.
(2) This is a both/and: Jesus’s immediate historical circumstances and the later historical circumstances in which the Evangelists wrote.
(3) Ah, but for those who wish to hear, Jesus’s teaching in parables is rich with theological content and significance. Those mini-narratives, and the overall Gospel narratives, situated as they are within the culminating Covenant-story of Israel, are pregnant with theological meaning. It would be terribly impoverishing, both in a literary and a spiritual sense, to suppose that St. Paul simply “delivered the baby” by means of his dialectical passages in Romans and Galatians. If anything, in this symbiosis that is part of the analogy of faith, the Gospels exert a centripital force upon our Bible reading; bringing us again and again (if we have ears to hear) to the heart of the Covenant, which consists not of an argument, but a holy family.
Andrew
sean said,
August 16, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Thanks for the response Andrew, I agree. What date do you attribute to the transcription of oral tradition. IOW, how long does it take, post resurrection, for the epistles and gospels to be transcribed?
Andrew McCallum said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:06 pm
There are loads of passages in the NT that directly connect our Spirit-wrought deeds of love and mercy to our inheriting eternal life in a causal way. So it seems to me that you can’t just “disagree” with my position, you need to demonstrate why those verses aren’t saying what I think they are.
Jason,
I’m struggling figure out which of the passages you quote should be taken in a “causal” manner. Lane quotes your commentary on Gal. 6:8 (and other passages in Gal. 5) which says “the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.”
Your commentary on this passage is:
Here we see Paul echoing Christ by saying that love of God and neighbor fulfills the law, but also adding that this is only possible through the NC gift of the Spirit, which he calls “walking in the Spirit.” This fruit-bearing, far from being a veiled attempt at self-righteousness, is the very “sowing to the Spirit” that will enable us to “reap eternal life.”
So I just don’t get this conclusion, Jason. How does the statement that those who reap eternal life are those who sow the Spirit come to mean mean that that this Spirit sowing becomes a causal factor in our justification? Where is the causal element here?
Or maybe there are other verses you cite which would be better examples?
Cheers for now….
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:08 pm
Do you not seeing a causal connection between sowing and reaping? Even for a Calvinist that’s pretty hardcore….
Jason Loh said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Hi Jason,
You wrote (re #11):
“So if something like the imputation of alien righteousness is essential to the gospel such that there is no true gospel without it, then we should expect Jesus to have taught it and all the NT writers to have expounded on his teaching (rather than Jesus, Peter, James, and John to have omitted it, while Paul only mentioned it in a couple places).”
How about when Jesus said that He was the “Way, Truth, and Life.” Granted that Jesus wasn’t propounding a formulaic expression of justification by imputation, but His statement would seem to be much more compatible with imputation considered as what “happens *to* the person” rather than infusion considered as what happens *in* the person.” After all, “no one cometh to the Father by by Me” implies what “happens to the person” *through, with, in and under* Jesus rather than *created* grace in the soul of the Christian. The table could be turned thus: Where do we find Our Lord and Saviour teaching anything like infused grace/ righteousness?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Snark aside, there is clearly a causal connection between sowing and reaping, by their very definition. As far as how justification comes into it, I trace the connection in Gal. 5-6 in my comment:
Justification by faith working through love –> love fulfills the law –> love is the fruit of the Spirit –> we are to walk in the Spirit –> walking in (or sowing to) the Spirit reaps the reward of everlasting life.
To deny the causal connection is like saying, “The man who reaps happens to have sown, but his reaping is causally irrespecting of his having sown.”
Andrew McCallum said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Jason – I believe that there is a general connection between what I sow and what I reap, but the question at issue here is what God does with what I sow. Again we agree that only those who sow the Spirit will reap eternal life. But does this mean that God uses this sowing to my account, so as to speak? Or is His justification of me based on something besides what I sow? The Galatians verse does not seem to say one way or another, but I think you are suggesting that there is a necessary causal element here and I’m not sure why you think this
So maybe there is another of the many verses you cite which would be better examples of this “causal” argument?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 16, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Andrew, I spelled out the causal element already, with cool little arrows and everything. What about that do you disagree with?
Jason Loh said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:02 am
“The gospel is the teaching that, because of the sacrifice and resurrection of Christ and subsequent gift of the Spirit, the love of God is shed forth in sinners’ hearts, enabling them to love God and neighbor, thereby fulfilling the law and gaining eternal life.”
As a Lutheran, I prefer to highlight Jesus’ words at the Last Supper as the Gospel:
“This is My Body broken for you; this is My blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins …” Granted the Lord’s Supper is an event in which Christian partake of species of bread and wine (which for Lutherans are the true Body and Blood of Our Lord and Saviour), how are the words to be construed as infused grace? After all infused grace (habitual grace) whilst flowing from Uncreated Grace is nonetheless created grace that resides in the soul. In the Lord’s Supper (Lutherans as well Roman Catholics believe that) we partake of the actual flesh and blood of Jesus. Whilst it is true that the human nature of Jesus is *created,* it is neither a “substance” by itself (Nestorianism!) nor “inherent” in the Christian (Adoptionism!)) but always and only from the “outside” (since it is “repeatedly” administered) …..
Again, how is infused grace compatible with the baptismal imagery employed in Romans 6? — death & resurrection … where the Old Adam is killed only to be raised up again in newness of life in, with and under Baptism … Granted that pouring is compatible with infusion, but immersion and sprinkling does not.
Bob S said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:17 am
The Galatians verse does not seem to say one way or another
Correction, it does not say.
but I think you are suggesting that there is a necessary causal element here and I’m not sure why you think this
Because someone has bought into the Roman presuppositions.
Or if you prefer Is. 6:9,10, if not 2 Thess. 2:9,10.
Don;t get me wrong, presuppositions are inescapable, but the real question is are they agreeable to Scripture. In light of all that has taken place here recently, in which Bryan and JJS openly balked at dealing honestly with 2 Tim. 3:15-17, it is no wonder that they also continue to buy into the Roman take/twist on Scripture when it comes to justification, never mind its perspicuity and sufficiency.
Bob S said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:22 am
Further, to assume that because something comes before something else, that the former necessarily causes the latter is a fallacy. The real question remains.
As Andrew put it: (B)ut the question at issue here is what God does with what I sow. . . . But does this mean that God uses this sowing to my account, so as to speak? Or is His justification of me based on something besides what I sow? .
And the substantive answer?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:33 am
Sean,
So far as I can tell, most scholars date Paul’s epistles (leaving to the side critical conclusions about the authenticity of some that bear his name) between 50–67 AD. Assuming Markan priority, which most scholars do, we can go by critical opinion and place the beginning of the writing of the Gospels just before, or perhaps sometime after, 70 AD. Some patristic witnesses confirm a date after the martyrdom of St. Peter (67 AD). There are, however, at least two patristic witnesses that indicate an earlier date: (1) According to Eusebius, the Gospel of Mark was written during the reign of Claudius (41–54 AD). (2) Clement of Alexandria claimed that Mark was written before St. Peter’s death.
I am not inclined to plunk for Markan priority, given that there is a tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel first, and Mark drew from that source in composing his shorter work. Most modern scholars do not think that Matthew wrote the Gospel in the form in which it has been preserved, dating the composition of this form, our Gospel of Matthew, between 80–90 AD. But I don’t agree with that argument either, largely from consideration of tradition. Thus, I can accept that at least two of the Gospels were written more or less concurrently with Paul’s epistles.
There is another literary consideration relevant to the matter of where the is the weight or center of gravity in the New Testament as a whole. It is tempting to see this in Paul, simply because his Epistles come *after* the Gospels in our NT table of contents, and he writes so many more Epistles than anyone else. So we can just sort of fall in with the view that the Gospels set the stage, and then Paul delivers the goods–brings out the big theology.
However, sticking with the stage metaphor, and not allowing our reading of the NT to be pre-determined by the order of the TOC, another dynamic can and, for me, does emerge.
Consider: Paul has very little to say about the actual events that occurred in the life of Christ. What Jesus said and did are not, with a very few exceptions (e.g., the Institution Narrative), recorded in Paul’s letters. On the one hand, we can, correctly, conclude that Paul is concerned with the *meaning* of the “Christ-event.” But even here Paul is almost never theoretical; he almost always has in mind very specific connections, whether large-scale (e.g., Jew–Gentile relations) or small-scale (e.g., scandals and practical concerns in the Church at Corinth), to the life of the churches.
Jesus himself is always just off-stage in Paul’s letters. In my opinion, this has the effect of tantalizing us to know more of this Jesus, not “according to the flesh,” as a mere historical incident, but as the Lord and Savior to whom St. Paul constantly refers. (Remember, we are presupposing the order of the New Testament TOC, which is a later development. Just imagine that you have not seen the Gospels yet, but have been reading Paul.) We want this Jesus to be as real for us as he was for St. Paul, who actually saw the Lord in the light of glory. And for this, as readers (not yet, in most cases, being granted the heavenly vision), we want the details of the Lord’s actual life among us–knowing that these events, by the nature of the case, are not just curiosities, but genuine mysteries of the faith.
Enter the Gospel narratives. Jesus comes center stage into the story, with a prologue, and in his birth, childhood, public ministry, teachings and travels, parables and miracles, friends and enemies, and that final journey to Jerusalem, and what happened there.
End Romanist Ramble.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:39 am
The bit in parentheses in the next to last paragraph should read:
(Remember, we are *not* presupposing the order of the New Testament TOC, which is a later development. Just imagine that you have not seen the Gospels yet, but have been reading Paul.)
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2012 at 5:22 am
Now that Andrew Preslar (21), a Roman Catholic, has used the word “Romanist” of himself, I think it’s a fair consideration to take off the table the excuse “I don’t deal with web sites where they call us ‘Romanists’: it’s offensive”.
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2012 at 5:33 am
Bryan #9, you have a problem.
I keep asking you, “how do you know what ‘the Church that Christ Founded’ looked like?” And of course, you keep ignoring the question.
The obvious response at that point would be for you to say, “we look at Scripture. The New Testament offers the best source of information about what the earliest Christian church was like”.
When Protestants argue directly from Scripture and the church fathers to rebut the claims of Rome, you say that’s not allowed: it’s “question-begging” because our interpretations of the historical evidence are paradigm-dependent – dependent on “sola Scriptura”.
But if you are going to go that route in response to Protestant critics, to disallow Scriptural and historical evidence, then you have engaged in a double standard now in lodging evidentiary appeals to Scripture regarding Justification. In invoking the Greek of Galatians, you have taken your “interpretive paradigm” off the table, and have now, in effect, begun to argue “sola Scriptura” in favor of your view of justification. Interesting twist.
This is a dilemma that you have created for yourself: Until now, you won’t discuss the [lack of] biblical and historical evidence of the early papacy, but here, now, you have just brought this type of evidence back onto the table.
If you can cite direct evidence in favor of your view of justification, [and I don’t have any doubts that the Greek scholars on this site are more than up to the task of addressing you on this issue, then you certainly must also cite your direct evidence for the papacy, as and you have now committed yourself to interact with our direct counterevidence.
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 9:18 am
Andrew,
Thanks again for the response. I’m not sure all your friends in the RC seminary world share your conviction of earlier dates or willingness to turn to the patristics for help in dating boundaries. But, I appreciate that you do. It does however bring into relief again that Rome even on an issue of dating the scriptures is going to parallel something as diverse as mainline protestantism in the U.S. And so, it continues to perplex me, and cause me to question how useful or meaningful this visible roman catholic unity is, on yet another issue. It’s off-topic for this post and I know you have studied responses to these objections, but I really was curious as to where someone like yourself or CTC, assuming it’s uniform on this issue, stood on something as particular and foundational as transcription.
dghart said,
August 17, 2012 at 9:58 am
Jason, around 11 you wrote:
“So if something like the imputation of alien righteousness is essential to the gospel such that there is no true gospel without it, then we should expect Jesus to have taught it and all the NT writers to have expounded on his teaching (rather than Jesus, Peter, James, and John to have omitted it, while Paul only mentioned it in a couple places). If you think that is a false characterization, then show me how.”
Another instance of how slippery history is. If the Early Church Fathers are an indication of what Christ told Peter about the primacy of Rome, why isn’t Paul an indication of what Paul had received from his Lord? RC’s often read back later developments into the kernel of the gospels. Why is it that when Protestants (may) do it, the response is how the ancient tops what came later. Isn’t Paul more ancient than the ECF and weren’t his writings infallible? So why do you (CTCers) sometimes appeal to ECF and sometimes to Christ?
Interpretation is messy.
Bob S said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:54 am
24 John,
It’s sort of like Joseph’s multicolored coat. We get to choose what color it is when asked. So too, depending on our audience, level of attention and degree of naivety we get to choose how we will skew Scripture, reason or history to vindicate holy mother Rome.
It’s quite the uhm … paradigm.
Sort of like a chameleon.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 11:28 am
John B.,
There are some words that members of a group can use of themselves, but which it would rude for those outside the group to use. You understand this, I think, so no need for me to cite the obvious example.
You asked Bryan what the early Church “looked like.” I think that the more relevant question, assuming that there was one Church early on (the one that Christ founded), is “Which Church today is that Church?” Substance is foundational, phenomena is not. See my response to Clark and Godfrey on “the lure of Rome.”
Sean,
Catholic seminaries are not the Magisterium, so diversity on opinion in the seminaries regarding who wrote what, and when, is not equivalent to the same sort of plurality in Protestant seminaries. So far as I understand things, higher critical questions about the origins and sources (etc) of the NT texts (and the OT texts, for that matter) are not foundational for Catholic theology, so long as the proposed answers do not conflict with what has been declared to be divinely revealed.
Andrew
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2012 at 11:50 am
Andrew Preslar — your “outside the group” category is bogus, no matter who is employing it.
Second, regarding your “response”, it only touches my question with respect to your papering over the notion that there was no early papacy, and the authority structure of “the Church” is completely different in New Testament times from what it emerges to be, say, in the fourth century.
dghart said,
August 17, 2012 at 11:53 am
Andrew P., why do you disregard the Eastern Church? The Orthodox could easily answer your question “which church today is that church” in ways that would complicate your narrative.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:21 pm
Darryl,
I wrote: “So if something like the imputation of alien righteousness is essential to the gospel such that there is no true gospel without it, then we should expect Jesus to have taught it and all the NT writers to have expounded on his teaching (rather than Jesus, Peter, James, and John to have omitted it, while Paul only mentioned it in a couple places). If you think that is a false characterization, then show me how.”
And you responded:
Sorry, but I don’t see how what you say here has anything to do with my statement. Like I said, if imputation is indeed central, then show me where you find it outside of two letters of Paul.
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Andrew,
I understand the distinction you’re wanting to make, it’s just that from the perspective of having been both within the fold and now without, it’s really a distinction without a difference. I mean, you can claim it of course, but outside of the textbook or the chalkboard it doesn’t seem to have the kind of traction, CTC would like to attribute to it. Now, sacerdotalism and the mass have much more uniformity in practice and really does seem to be a point of unity. We get slammed as protestants, by CTC for our lack of unity(30k denom. argument), and yet the plurality of doctrinal adherence within Rome certainly rivals the plurality of doctrinal fidelity you see within mainline protestantism, particularly when large swaths of roman theology(sacred scripture) since Vat II took it’s lead from German protestant liberalism. There’s a real dissonance within the roman communion. It’s fine if you want to argue, as has been argued, that there is reform afoot on these issues, but it’s a tough sell convincing that the unity that is exhibited within Rome is superior to that which adheres within even liberal protestantism. To give you an example of what might conflict with the deposit, the higher-critical method taught post Vat II, challenged the very historicity of Jesus Christ and even brought into play, Jesus Seminar conclusions(casting colored stones) to determine whether Jesus actually had said what was attributed to him(normally claims of divinity) and would often posit 100 to 200 years of oral tradition, thus setting the groundwork for what was essentially a ‘Jeffersonian bible’ and Jesus not so much the Son of God, but a ‘liberation theologian(rabbi)’. It would be one thing if this was particularly rogue clergy or order, but this was boiler plate stuff as late as 1992 at the seminaries. It still is as far as I know, and was used to good effect, as far as the roman catholic was concerned for both arguing for a ‘robust’ sacred tradition and a pious ‘community of faith’. Now all communions/denominations have their problems but you’d think the one holy roman catholic magisterium, would effect a more uniform and united doctrinal fealty than protestant liberalism. It certainly claims to do just that.
dghart said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Jason, your “show me” presumes your appeal to something earlier than Paul. And yet, Roman Catholic appeals to the later fathers and councils will not allow Protestants to appeal to something earlier, say Paul.
So I am pointing out that your “show me” does not a paradigm make. Sometimes your development of doctrine works from earlier to later, and sometimes the other way.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 17, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Jason Stellman said in #19: Andrew, I spelled out the causal element already, with cool little arrows and everything. What about that do you disagree with?
Jason,
I lost Internet connection in the airport I was in last night and just getting back to this. Your arrow schema in #17 was thus:
Justification by faith working through love –> love fulfills the law –> love is the fruit of the Spirit –> we are to walk in the Spirit –> walking in (or sowing to) the Spirit reaps the reward of everlasting life.
OK, so you are saying that the command to walk in the Spirit necessitates that this Spirit walking is used by God to obtain our salvation (justification)? Am I stating this right? If so then I just don’t see that there is a connection. Why would the fact that we are commanded to obey certain principles mean that God uses this obedience to obtain our justification?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Darryl,
As Andrew has argued, the table of contents in our Bibles does not reflect the chronological order of when the books were written, meaning that gospel writers could very well have imbibed Paul’s works before penning their accounts of Jesus life and teachings.
But earlier or later has nothing to do with it. Something resembling the imputation of alien righteousness should be present outside of two letters of Paul if that doctrine is indeed the sine qua non of the gospel.
If you want you could bite the bullet and say that God revealed it to no NT writer before Paul, that God revealed it to no NT writer besides Paul, and that God then hid it from everyone in church history until Martin Luther, but if you go that route you’ll have to excuse me for expecting you to prove that position, or at least show that it’s plausible.
The (Augustinian) paradigm I set forth has much more explanatory value, since it can be identified in all its basic features on the lips, or from the quills, of all the NT players.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Andrew,
I am saying that there is a progression in Paul’s thought in these two chapters, such if you just sit down and read them through, you can’t miss it:
“If you want to be justified, circumcision won’t cut it, so to speak. You need to be justified by faith working through love.”
“Why is ‘love’ necessary?”
“Because love fulfills the law.”
“How to do we get that?
“It’s the fruit of the Spirit.”
“Oh. So what’s required of us then?”
“To walk in the Spirit.”
“And why must we do that?”
“Because if you sow to the Spirit you will reap eternal life.”
(A n d … scene!)
Hence the irony. The very law-keeping that the Jews thought they could accomplish by the letter, God makes possible by the Spirit who sheds forth the love of God in our hearts. So faith alone is by definition dead faith, it is only living if it is formed by love (just like a body is only living if it is indwelt by a soul), thus if I have all faith so that I can move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing.
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:41 pm
As a point of method, brought up earlier, Larry Hurtado gives a number of reasons why a study of Paul’s letters gives us a better understanding of the earliest church’s beliefs and practices – including its earliest leadership and authority structures – than other New Testament documents:
From Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI and Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, ©2003).
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 1:59 pm
D.G.,
I don’t disregard the Orthodox churches, nor do I take lightly their claim to be the one Church that Christ founded. You can read this post to get a glimpse of my appreciation of one of the complications introduced by this complicated schism.
Sean,
The Magisterium, in its ordinary teaching capacity, has repeatedly over the past century and up to the present day expressed itself on the subject of biblical exegesis. You can go to this link to get a sense of the lie of the land. You can read the Magisterial document referred to that post to gain some understanding of the position of the Church regarding higher critical methods of Bible interpretation.
The Church’s charisms of teaching, governing, and sanctifying do not extend so far as to compel assent; thus, there have always been dissenters in the Church. If you think that the Church has been too slow to clean house, that is fine, but realize that the objective body of Magisterial teaching on Sacred Scripture exists, together with the Church’s long-standing interpretive traditions received from the Ancient and Medieval fathers, and these have not been fruitless–witness those Catholic academics and ordinary lay persons who receive the Church’s teaching concerning Sacred Scripture, along with her hermeneutical tradition, with joy and to great spiritual benefit.
There have been, and perhaps in some places still are, dissenters teaching in the universities (this is indisputable) and even seminaries, but before we simply take for granted your broad brush characterization of Catholic seminaries up to 1992, as to the association with the radical conclusions and methodologies of the Jesus Seminar, it would be good to see the data upon which you are basing your claims.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 2:10 pm
John B.,
You quoted Hurtado:
How far back goes the associations with Christian circles of Peter, James, Matthew, and John?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 2:19 pm
In the first paragraph of my reply to Sean (#40), the first part of the third sentence should read:
“You can read the Magisterial document*s* referred to *in* that post …”
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 2:39 pm
Andrew,
Just from my own experience there was OST(oblate school of theology), and the priestly formation center at the USD campus which was the diocesan center for San Diego, Ca. My prof’s, most multiple post grad degrees, were Notre Dame, OST, Cal-Berkeley, University of Dallas-believe that was Fr. Pachence at USD. Fr. Whitley was Cal-Berkeley, they sent him off to the Vatican to try to figure out the banking fiasco(no joke, Whitley was brilliant). Our Lady of The lake, Incarnate Word university, most have priestly formation centers where they don’t have seminaries or they put them through novitiates. From what I understand it doesn’t get better as we go East. They all taught higher critical method as a deconstructionist hermenuetic of sacred scripture. Didn’t matter whether it was Texas or the West coast, I’m not as familiar with the Northeast or midwest.
Here’s an article about one of my own profs., he’s got a chair now at OST
http://www.satodayscatholic.com/041009_OblateSchool.aspx
Bryan Cross said,
August 17, 2012 at 2:40 pm
D.G. (re: #35,
You wrote:
Just in case there is some misunderstanding, Catholic appeals to church fathers and councils do not forbid Protestants appealing to anyone or anything, including appeals to the writings of St. Paul. From a Catholic point of view, not all such appeals are equally authoritative regarding the content and explication of sacred doctrine, but they are not forbidden.
Also, in Catholic theology development of doctrine only takes place from earlier to later. Of course it clarifies what was held earlier, but that’s quite different from the notion that doctrine develops from later to earlier.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 17, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Andrew Preslar 41: How far back goes the associations with Christian circles of Peter, James, Matthew, and John?
Paul was converted just about a year after the resurrection, so it is ust a couple of years earlier.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 17, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Bryan (#44): Catholic appeals to church fathers and councils do not forbid Protestants appealing to anyone or anything, including appeals to the writings of St. Paul.
Well, of course they don’t forbid them. They just ignore them as ‘just your own private interpretation.’
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Well Andrew if you’d actually read your own link, there would have been no need to question the veracity of my claims, but thanks for the goodwill and ‘charity’ on the issue. The link absolutely substantiates my claim, which you already knew.
“The official reconstitution of the PBC distances the Biblical Commission from the Magisterium, and is reflective of a growing divergence between the interpretive opinions of many Catholic exegetes and the definitive doctrines of the Catholic Church. For the past generation or so, an uneasy truce, and in some cases an outright antagonism, has existed between the Catholic faith and Catholic biblical scholarship. This tension has been the subject of much reflection at the highest levels of the Church, including the 2003 document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “On the Relationship Between Magisterim and Exegetes.”
Like I said, it’s a dicey unity, particularly when the priests being trained by the questionable biblical exegetes are in turn training the parishioners in the faith.
You do have the Mass.
Andy Schreiber said,
August 17, 2012 at 5:25 pm
Jason, in #38 you said:
““If you want to be justified, circumcision won’t cut it, so to speak. You need to be justified by faith working through love.”
“Why is ‘love’ necessary?”
“Because love fulfills the law.”
“How to do we get that?
“It’s the fruit of the Spirit.”
“Oh. So what’s required of us then?”
“To walk in the Spirit.”
“And why must we do that?”
“Because if you sow to the Spirit you will reap eternal life.”
(A n d … scene!)
Hence the irony. The very law-keeping that the Jews thought they could accomplish by the letter, God makes possible by the Spirit who sheds forth the love of God in our hearts. So faith alone is by definition dead faith, it is only living if it is formed by love (just like a body is only living if it is indwelt by a soul), thus if I have all faith so that I can move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing.”
————————————————-
But back in chapter 3 Paul had already said, “Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith [or “the hearing of faith”]? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh?” (v.2-3).
So the Spirit gives us new life, writes the law of God on our hearts, and enables us to fulfill the law (although not perfectly). But we receive the Spirit by “the hearing of faith.” The horse (faith) goes before the cart (love/works).
And then, of course, we have v.6 where Paul quotes Genesis 15:6. How did Abraham attain righteousness? Not by faith working through love (sanctification), but by faith – he “believed God, and it [i.e.believing] was counted to him as righteousness.”
jsm52 said,
August 17, 2012 at 6:43 pm
Andy,
You should have been a director. Maybe you are!
Faith working through love used as Rome’s definition of how sinners are justified boils down to – those who become sanctified (works of love) will be justified. Christ plus… Exactly what Paul argues against in Galatians.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 17, 2012 at 8:06 pm
“If you want to be justified, circumcision won’t cut it, so to speak. You need to be justified by faith working through love.”
Jason (38),
In your discussion here you are noting the fact that justification and love (the end of the law) are inextricably intertwined. And I would agree, we are justified by a living faith not a dead one. Your last line in your series of quotes is “Because if you sow to the Spirit you will reap eternal life.”. And sure we agree, only those who sow the Spirit will reap eternal life. But that’s your last line. Why? Why don’t you go on to say that this sowing of the Spirit, this love demonstrated to God as the end of the law, is partially used by God to justify us. That’s what you are trying to prove in the end, right?
You are noting in the passages you quote that faith and love/works go hand in hand. But you are trying to make the case that they are not just closely associated, but more than this, that one causes the other. Now a logician might point out to you that you are in danger of committing cum hoc ergo proper hoc. A statistician might warm you that correlation does not necessitate causality. You have noted that love and justification cannot be separated, but are you sure that the verses you cite really demonstrate causality? Or do they just demonstrate correlation?
Bryan Cross said,
August 17, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Andy, (re: #48)
From a Catholic point of view, what the Holy Spirit infuses into the heart (Rom 5:5) is not an *act* of love by those who receive it. Rather, the persons described in Rom 5:5 receive the virtue of agape, and a virtue is not an act. The “love/works” conflation, by assuming that love is to be placed in the “works” category, implicitly presupposes that there is no such thing as agape as a supernaturally infused *virtue.* If living faith is the supernaturally infused virtue of faith informed by the supernaturally infused virtue of agape, then living faith precedes all *acts* of agape, but does not precede the *virtue* of agape, because living faith is constituted, in part, by the virtue of agape, and therefore cannot precede the virtue of agape.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 17, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Bryan,
Where in Romans or Galatians (to mention two epistles of Paul) is love explicitly defined or described as a virtue infused in the believer?
I can understand that I have Christ within through his Spirit. That God’s love in Christ has been shed abroad in my heart. I can understand I am now alive to God through the death and resurrection of Christ, through faith in him. I can understand I have been given a new heart and will inclined to God that cherishes his righteousness, desiring to live unto him.
Can you point to the biblical references for love as a virtue infused in believers?
Bryan Cross said,
August 17, 2012 at 9:11 pm
John B (re: #26),
I’ve never said that Protestants aren’t allowed to argue from Scripture. I have pointed out ways in which uniquely Protestant notions are typically presupposed in the methods in which some Protestants appeal to Scripture to argue against Catholic claims.
As I’ve mentioned to you before, the most helpful way to avoid accidentally misconstruing what I say, is always to quote me when claiming that I’ve said something, rather than attributing to me an interpretation you took from something I wrote.
Now that it is clear that I have never “disallowed Scriptural and historical evidence,” it should be clear that there is no basis for the “double standard” charge.
Making use of the Greek, and engaging in Scriptural exegesis does not entail taking my interpretive paradigm “off the table.” On the contrary, I presented (in comment #9) an interpretation of the biblical evidence deeply informed by the broader Catholic interpretive paradigm.
Nor does arguing from Scripture presuppose sola scriptura, because arguing from Scripture does not per se presuppose anything about the authority of the Magisterium or the Tradition. Only when the authority of the Magisterium or Tradition is denied, either explicitly or implicitly, in one’s arguments from Scripture would one be presupposing sola scriptura.
Except that that conclusion does not follow from your premise. Just because I argue for x, does not mean that I “certainly must” do anything.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Sean,
Not only did I read the material to which I linked, I actually wrote it. But you could have at least assumed that I’d read it, before responding as you did in #47. So much for good will and charity, indeed. To be fair, you guys don’t usually make much of an effort to bring those qualities to the table in the first place, so I guess that I’ll just grant you the snark.
Moving on:
I have acknowledged in my previous comments that there have been and still are dissenters teaching biblical studies in Catholic schools and seminaries. When I asked for data to substantiate your claims, I was quite specific: “… but before we simply take for granted your broad brush characterization of Catholic seminaries up to 1992, as to the association with the radical conclusions and methodologies of the Jesus Seminar, it would be good to see the data upon which you are basing your claims.”
There are distinctions within the guild of scholars who rely upon higher critical methodologies. The Jesus Seminary represents the radical end of the spectrum. So, when I ask you to support the claim that “the higher-critical method taught post Vat II, challenged the very historicity of Jesus Christ and even brought into play Jesus Seminar conclusions …” it does not suffice to refer to Catholic scholars practicing higher critical exegesis.
Again, there is no doubt that destructive higher criticism has made inroads in Catholic scholarship, and this certainly has an untoward, trickle-down effect. But as I have already pointed out, the guild of biblical scholars is not the Magisterium, and for that reason, along with the Mass (which as you correctly indicate, we have), the Catholic Church has not fragmented into micro-denominations as did Protestantism, after Protestant scholars were given over to destructive criticism of the Bible.
And that is a distinction with a difference.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:12 pm
John B. (re #45),
Do you mean the couple of years that those men spent with Christ, day in and day out? If wide and early acquaintance is a criteria for “better understanding of the early church’s beliefs and practices,” then Paul ranks lower on the scale than do the other Apostles. Thus, your point in #39 fails its own test, re the relative weight given to Paul compared to other NT writers. Time to take up the Gospels and the Catholic Epistles!
Andrew
dgh said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:15 pm
Jason, earlier or later has nothing to do with it? Have you been reading CTC posts lately?
dgh said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Andrew, so how is your conundrum of choosing Rome over Constantinople any different from choosing Geneva over Wittenberg? You resolve this by saying you choose The Church? I can imagine an Orthodox Christian saying, “you missed.”
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:25 pm
DGH,
Of course an Orthodox Christian would say or think that. So would an Orthodox Jew, in response to my resolution to remain a Christian rather than convert to Judaism, after having wrestled with the conundrum of the relation of Jesus of Nazareth to the Hebrew Bible.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:35 pm
To answer your question: The differences between choosing between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and choosing between a Calvinist denomination and a Lutheran denomination include: (1) Both of the former claim to be the Church that Christ founded. (2) In a closely related matter, “Rome” and “Constantinople” each represent, in different ways, one actual, visible body of Christians. This is not the case for either “Geneva” or “Wittenburg.” (3) Both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church stand in material continuity with the Apostles, by the succession of bishops. Lutheran and Calvinist denominations were founded by their namesakes in the 16th century, and your own denomination, out the plethora of Reformed denominations, was founded in 1936.
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Andrew,
I get that you wrote it. You also knew the landscape well enough to not require me to ‘show my hand’. That was bush. Yes, there is a spectrum and yes, I agree, Jesus seminar is an extreme, but the seminaries, particularly at the time were not exhibiting much variety. The whole ‘traditionalist’ movement is fairly new and though there may be now ‘pockets’ of conservatism, CTC and the like are on the outside looking in at most of the american catholic world. Dissenters my foot, more like majority opinion.
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Andrew,
I take that back, maybe you don’t know it well enough. That would explain it better
jsm52 said,
August 17, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Andrew,
Which is to say your model of Christ’s church is an outward one, a visible church ala the nation of Israel.
Rather, our citizenship is in heaven. A doctrine is not of this world, nor recognized by the world. You rest in succession of physical laying of hands and interpretations of history. We rest in succession of doctrine and Christ Jesus alone… that reaches back to the New Testament… to the Gospels, Acts, and the Epistles.
No, the churches of the reformation have a lineage that didn’t begin at Wittenberg. We identify with the church of 300AD, 700AD, 1300AD as our church… gradually going off course, finally coming to a head, in God’s time, in the early part of the 16th century.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 17, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Sean,
Requiring you to substantiate a specific claim is not “bush,” though making unsubstantiated claims might be. Dissent from Catholic doctrine is not measured by “majority opinon,” because Catholic doctrine is not defined by the majority, but by the Magisterium.
Regarding CTC, that stands for “called to communion,” communion not simply with “the american catholic world,” but with the worldwide Catholic Church of all ages. Each member of our project is very much on the inside of the Catholic Church in America. For example: I go to Mass each Sunday, participate in parish Bible studies, and engage in a variety of diocesan activities. These are not pockets or movements, but parishes and people, under the pastoral care of the local bishop, in full communion with the bishop of Rome.
You seem to be having trouble making up your mind as to whether I “know the landscape well enough.” Well, you can read my article again, or you can point out some crucial fact that I am overlooking, in my response to your increasingly careless claims.
Andrew
sean said,
August 17, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Andrew,
It’s bush if you already know it to be the case. Which your article substantiates that you in fact do, or do you reason that the magisterium cut off it’s biblical arm, and over the very reasons I cited, just because……. I appreciate that you have the Mass, I’ve argued that from jump, and they are ‘pockets’ in the larger landscape, though I imagine in anglo-catholic communities it seems the norm.
David Gadbois said,
August 18, 2012 at 12:12 am
I am perplexed by those who would give a priority to the Gospels over the Pauline epistles when constructing a doctrine of justification. We don’t even expect to find a full Christology or Triadology in the Gospel narratives, we find a fuller reflection and more direct exposition of those doctrines in the epistles. Setting aside the authors’ narration, we mostly find cryptic, round-about comments from Jesus on his own divinity (e.g. Mark 12:35-37) with precious few direct “ego eimi” moments. Similarly with justification, we find only one instance of justification being mentioned by name (Luke 18, a common Protestant proof-text), and so there is an exegetical burden of proof to establish that the *concept* is present in other places throughout the Gospels. Starting with, for instance, cryptic parables is an incredibly weak place to start as a doctrinal foundation. But we can find justification, both the word and the concept, found many times in Paul in direct didactic exposition.
I sense that some Romanists cannot accept that Jesus would have said precious little on the instrument of justification and double imputation. But ought we really be surprised? Jesus spent His time pointing people to the *object* of their faith, Himself, against the background of the OT messianic hope and sacrificial system. People were justified during Jesus’ ministry because they *practiced* sola fide, that is they cast all their hope on Jesus alone, not because they understood the mechanics of justification. Sola fide, propitiatory atonement, and double imputation, are all more self-conscious and self-reflective ways of understanding *how* Jesus saves, but this is not absolutely vital to understanding *that* Jesus saves, although it is vital to having a sound, worked-out theology.
I mean, we don’t consign Piscator, Gataker, Vines, Twisse, and various Lutherans and Anglicans who do not accept double imputations to hell (although obviously they would agree with us on sola fide). And, indeed, we find many, uh, curious theories of the atonement from the ECFs, yet we do not doubt that they had true faith in Christ unto salvation. The object of their faith was the true Jesus Christ of the Scriptures, and this faith was the instrument of their justification.
Andy Schreiber said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:21 am
@ jsm52: The whole “and scene!” thing was Jason. I was quoting his earlier post in this thread. The part that I wrote was below the dotted line.
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 6:04 am
Andrew Preslar 58:
First of all, you’re driving a wedge between Paul and the other Apostles, which is a no-no.
Second, you misconstrue what is meant by “better understanding of the early church’s beliefs and practices.” Paul was a religiously-trained Pharisee. He knew, systematically, both his own beliefs at the time, and the Christian beliefs he opposed.
Third, when he met the Glorified Lord, and was carried to the third heaven, he learned things the Twelve could not have known.
Fourth, he consulted personally with the Apostles, and so he benefitted from their knowledge.
Fifth, as a trained theologian of his times, he was able to put what the Lord told him directly, and what he saw, and what the other Apostles reported to him into a unique perspective.
Sixth, he traveled widely, giving him access not only to the Jerusalem church, but churches across Asia and Europe.
Finally, he wrote widely, letting us know the state of beliefs and practices in a wide swath of churches across the empire of that time.
Both his direct statements and his incidental statements reveal huge amounts of information, and in some cases, this information is very clear and systematic. Peter doesn’t tell you what they believed in Corinth. Nor does James. John wrote much later.
If you want to know what the earliest church believed and practiced, from, say 30 AD to 60 AD, the only source of information we have for those years is Paul.
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 6:08 am
Bryan 53:
Oh, my bad, I mean, only if you want to give the impression that you are trying to have an honest discussion, instead of looking for some way to stack the deck in favor of your own position.
As it is, what you are doing (avoiding providing evidence of the early papacy) is special pleading.
Bryan Cross said,
August 18, 2012 at 7:08 am
John B. (re: #68)
An honest discussion is one in which no participant demands of another that he provide in a combox evidence that would fill books, when he has previously referred to books providing the requested evidence, regarding a question that is not on the topic of the present thread, and then accuses him of special pleading and “avoiding providing evidence” when he chooses not to comply with the demand. That’s sophistry, not honest discussion. And choosing not to participate in a discussion, whether on-topic or off-topic, is not special pleading.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Ron said,
August 18, 2012 at 8:41 am
Re: 65
Great post, David.
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 9:01 am
Bryan 69, yours is always the first comment in one of these Green Baggins threads.
You yourself come to a place where the papacy is rightly rejected, Roman authority is rightly rejected, and yet, you come here presupposing your “Catholic IP”, which itself is begging the question.
My attempts to understand the terms of the discussion here is not “off topic”. Yours is what’s not “honest discussion” here.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 18, 2012 at 9:12 am
David et al, that is well put in 65. I was going to say something about how the Gospel of John is Christological, but your second paragraph explained precisely my point.
We shouldn’t try to bifurcate Paul and Jesus, my Romanist friends. Of course the former is God, and the latter is our very important father in the faith. We need to see how the books of the NT fit together as to what God is communicating to us.
I was reading on Wikipedia that for Romanists, the pope is required in order to understand the Bible correctly (or maybe in case of conflict over how to interpret?).
No thanks, for me, anyway. Maybe I can talk about that issue with the pope when he accepts my golf offer. He may have some interesting thing to share about how he reads his bible. But I’m not going to blindly accept his interpretation. Sure, I submit to my elders, but some guy in Italy? He doesn’t even know me or answer my calls for golf….boo hop.
In any case, I thought the 900 or so comments about creation issues was impressive. Clearly the Rome / Geneva dialogue is another ongoing debate. Thanks to all you ‘big sluggers’ in the faith, for hashing these things out for all of us in the peanut gallery to see. Or to stay with me theme, I hear its exciting to see Tiger Woods in real life.
If we can get 4 fellas to debate this is a real live debate and post to YouTube, I may watch that too, while i exercise and train for my 8k.
Apologies as always,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 18, 2012 at 9:13 am
*latter
jsm52 said,
August 18, 2012 at 11:19 am
@Andy 66-
Ah, the pitfalls of reading too quickly at work. But your comments at the end are what I was echoing.
So, amen and thanks for highlighting the righteousness of God that comes through faith alone in Christ, His final word to be believed unto salvation.
dgwired said,
August 18, 2012 at 11:29 am
Andrew, so your decision to go to Rome instead of Constantinople is still a decision that you made on the basis of your opinion about which church makes the true claim to be the true church. Your conversion fits the Protestant paradigm.
As for Reformed churches there is none called by name Calvinist. Calvin was one among many pastors who ministered in Protestant communions that were not Lutheran.
I’d say that our communions are true churches by virtue of the work of the Holy Spirit (manifested in preaching, sacraments, and discipline). Our continuity with Christ and the apostles is spiritual. Do you think we do not have the Spirit? Are we deluded? Are we unsaved? Heretics because of such a claim? We admit that other churches are part of the true church even if deformed in important ways. It seems to me you have no room for such ecumenicity. I know Vatican II has tried to remedy this. But it used to be a doctrinal teaching (therefore infallible) that no salvation was possible outside fellowship with Rome. It seems to me you’re in a bit of a dilemma.
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 11:54 am
Bryan 69:
The fact that you offer this, as a serious response, is in itself is just further evidence of the weakness of your position.
You have to know this. You have to be aware, you coming here are very much like the emperor with no clothes on.
Most of the folks here are too kind to tell you this. Or is it a kindness? Is it not more kind to tell you that you are a fool, and you really need to re-think everything that you stand for?
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:01 pm
John (re #67),
“Better understanding” was your phrase, and it implies a comparison and gradation, as between Paul and the other NT writers. If that counts as “driving a wedge,” then you are the one doing the driving. As it stands, however, exploring the relations between Paul and the Gospels in the overall harmony of NT theology is not driving a wedge. So your claim is empty rhetoric, baseless, and beside the point.
The argument that you are making in #67 is different than the excerpt of Hutardo’s argument that you offered in #39. The latter depended upon the nearness of Paul to the early Church. I responded by pointing out the Paul was not present at Pentecost, and his presence in the very earliest days of the Church was that of an outsider and a persecutor; i.e., as Saul. Peter, Matthew, and John, on the other hand, were there from the beginning. So the argument that we can glean “better understanding” from Paul, as compared to the other NT writers, of Christian origins and identity cannot be sustained on the grounds of nearness to the origin of the Christian religion.
Moving on to your new points:
2. On the other hand, the other Apostles knew our Lord himself, and spent years being directly taught by him. If you want to make comparisons (and, by your own logic, drive wedges), then I would say that that instruction trumps Saul’s training as a Pharisee.
3. Each Apostle, at least the ones whose writings have been preserved, had his own distinctive understanding and appreciation of the “Christ-event.” The NT features a medley of voices. St. John knew things the St. Paul did not know, and so forth. Be careful about driving that wedge between Paul and the rest.
4. But of course. And vice versa. See above.
5. Ibid.
6. Certainly. But he was not travelling, as a general rule, to where churches already existed that had been planted by other Apostles. He was bringing something that already existed (from before his own inclusion) to those places, and establishing local churches in communion with the one Church that Christ founded.
7. Your final point indicates one of the primary reasons why St. Paul’s letters are of such interest to the historian of Christian origins. I simply don’t take the higher critical point of view, i.e., that the Gospels and Acts, being later compositions, are less significant in this regard. Thus I reject your concluding statement as an unwarranted bit of skepticism. Christ himself is the source and origin, the chief corner-stone, of the Church.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:19 pm
D.G.,
In a sense, yes, I had to make a choice between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, just as folks who come to believe in God, and seek to enter into a religious communion of fellow theists have to make a choice between becoming a Christian or joining another theistic religion making absolute claims that are at critical points incompatible with the Christian faith.
Neither move presupposes the Protestant paradigm. As I understand it, the distinctive features of that paradigm is that in every case involving a disputed interpretation of divine revelation, the individual’s final authority, his last court of appeal, is his own interpretation. Thus, the paradigm applies to intramural dynamics, not to the dynamic of choosing between religions, which involves comparing various paradigms with one another.
There is no dilemma, as between the teaching of Vatican II regarding separated brethren, and the teaching of earlier councils and popes regarding salvation “extra ecclesiam.” Vatican II simply points out the there is a sense in which non-Catholics might and do in fact participate in the life of the Catholic Church, and so are not completely outside her, and thus not cut off from the hope of salvation.
Andrew
dgh said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Andrew, great, you get to define paradigms and ours comes up short. But always in the peace of Christ.
So Vatican II did what the mainline churches had done 30 years earlier, recognized that God’s truth was at work in other religions. Now that’s not a great way to maintain continuity with Christ and the early church fathers.
Bob S said,
August 18, 2012 at 1:59 pm
53
Here we see the genuine Called To Comedy reasoning at work.
IOW the gentleman is telling us that Paul in 2 Tim. 3:15-17 acknowledges that not only was Timothy a cradle catholic that knew about the infallible magisterium from his childhood, but the same inspired magisterium is so profitable that Timothy is perfected unto every good work of doctrine, correction and instruction in righteousness, to the end that only the most inveterate bigot and ignoramus could quarrel about it. (And they know who they are.)
Fair enough, see below.
No mention of course of what Scripture explicitly itself says regarding the infallibility and sufficiency of . . . . Scripture. Which essentially denies the infallibility and sufficiency of the Magisterium/Tradition. After all, that is the definition of sufficiency – that nothing else is needed.
Unless Humpty Dumpty is infallible and words mean just what we want them to mean. Then all bets are off and Alice in Wonderland is really an apocryphal gospel written by a rogue nun/CtC secretary.
Of course the come back is, Scripture does not explicitly deny the infallibility and sufficiency of M/T, consequently they can co-reign in peace – this paradigm of course, is only mentioned by the M/T – of which oddly enough(?) infallible Scripture completely fails to mention.
But what is written is written, not only in Scripture, but by our interlocutor, dead pan though he be.
Correction. Just because you assert x doesn’t mean you have to do anything. Yet in that all men have reasonable souls, a genuine and consistent argument is expected from one’s hearers if one expects his argument to prevail.
Unless we are talking about an implicit and blind faith in holy mother Rome with her infallible magisterium and tradition. In which case we can’t do more than second the Red Queen: “Off with their heads”.
cordially
Andrew Preslar said,
August 18, 2012 at 2:14 pm
D.G.,
Regarding continuity between V2 and the Fathers on the question of the salvation of persons not formally Christians, here are some relevant tidbits:
St. Justin Martyr (d.c. 165)
Those who lived according to Logos are Christians, even if they were considered atheists, as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus. {Apology, I, 46}
St. Augustine
From the beginning of the human race, whoever believed in Him and understood Him somewhat, and lived according to His precepts . . . whoever and wherever they may have been, doubtless were saved through him. {Epistle 102, 12}
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Or this one:
“Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.”
(Peter)
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 3:52 pm
Andrew Preslar #77:
Right, and what do you know of the church of the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s from any document other than Acts or possibly James? Where else do you get details about practice and belief? And in such a large measure as you get from Paul?
You are quite far away from having an adequate understanding of what I am doing. I’ve written about this before, and have a long paper trail. You look for “an interpretation of Scripture”, failing to realize that Scripture itself is God’s “interpretation” of his own acts in history.
Thus, Paul’s letters are God’s interpretation of the Redemptive acts that Christ Jesus performed. And his analysis of “justification” in Jewish history (in the books of Romans and Galatians) are quite reflective of what he was teaching in the churches in the 30’s, 40’s, and 50’s. In “the Church that Christ Founded™”.
You are the one who placed Paul “lower on the scale than do the other apostles” (#55).
As David G. said in 65, “we find a fuller reflection and more direct exposition of those doctrines in the epistles”. The key is, these are different aspects of the same thing, like looking at the facets of a diamond from different angles. Scripture interprets Scripture.
More to follow
dghart said,
August 18, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Andrew, I guess the bishops at Trent hadn’t read the fathers. Nor Archbishop Piccolomini when he placed Galileo under house arrest.
dghart said,
August 18, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Jason, so Peter was a universalist, or simply figuring out that he wasn’t infallible when he refused to eat with the gentiles?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 18, 2012 at 4:07 pm
No, he just agreed with Augustine (or, the other way around).
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Andrew Preslar #77, following up on my comments in #83:
I am adding to it. I stand by what I said in #39. There are more reasons to do so than what I related there… “a study of Paul’s letters gives us a better understanding of the earliest church’s beliefs and practices – including its earliest leadership and authority structures – than other New Testament documents”. The purpose of the Gospels is to show us the life of Christ. Not primarily what the earliest church believed or practiced.
You here have already missed a bunch. Paul had theological training as a Pharisee. It’s true, he did not spend three years with “the Lord Himself”. But he spent time with “the Lord in Heaven”. And you are not in any position to know what trumps what at this point.
And Paul was out teaching and forming churches in the 40’s and 50’s, and what he was teaching was (a) theologically structured, the way that Romans and Galatians are structured, for example, and in the scheme of things, in no way “trumped” by what came as writings in the Gospel.
I am not in any way driving wedges. But what I am doing is showing how Paul’s teaching fit into the scheme of “the Church that Christ Founded™, which you claim to know by what reason? How do you know what the church was teaching in the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s? Certainly you don’t know anything at all about this time apart from the Scriptures. Because it is Paul who traveled and founded new churches and taught them systematically the same things we see written down in his letters (Galatians and Romans for example), in the manner that I outlined in my previous comment (83).
As noted above, Paul was a Systematic Theologian in his day, and as he traveled founding new churches, the message he was giving them was what you find in Galatians and Romans.
Jason Stellman was discounting Pauline justification because he found it only in two letters of Paul’s. But Paul’s two letters are plenty sufficient for this explication that he provides. The right way to understand Paul is to take him at his word, not to try to force Paul’s doctrine of justification into later Roman Catholic thought. What you are trying to do is to force later traditions back on to Paul’s words. That type of practice is condemned in Matthew 15.
Nor do I take “the higher critical point of view”. But in terms of the timeline of “the Church that Christ Founded™”, we do have actual, systematic teachings of what was taught by that church in that era, right after Christ founded it, in Paul’s letters. We may date Paul’s teachings to the 30’s and 40’s and 50’s. The Gospels were later writings and incorporating different facets of the Revelatory acts of God in creation that dealt with matters other than what Paul was dealing with. Paul was telling people how justification works, in a systematic way. The other New Testament writings may or may not have dealt with that topic in less systematic ways, but of course they must be found to be in agreement with what Paul had been teaching in “the Church that Christ Founded™”.
isaiah said,
August 18, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Just read through Gal. 5 & 6 with Jason’s synopsis in mind. I think it fits very well. Specifically, vss. 8 & 9:
It seems clear to me that Paul has presented two different possibilities:
a) going the way of flesh, which, earlier in Galatians and other places, Paul associates with following the (Mosaic) Law, and leads to death, or
b) following the law of the Spirit and of Christ (cf. v. 2), which leads to eternal life.
Choosing option b. means starting with faith in Christ and His work on the Cross and accomplishing ourselves (through God’s grace) the work of agape-righteousness, which has been poured out in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). Of course, none of this is possible without the Son of God’s incarnation and redemption by death on the Cross.
And that, as I understand it, is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
isaiah.
Bob S said,
August 18, 2012 at 4:51 pm
51 From a Catholic point of view, what the Holy Spirit infuses into the heart (Rom 5:5) is not an *act* of love by those who receive it. Rather, the persons described in Rom 5:5 receive the virtue of agape, and a virtue is not an act. The “love/works” conflation, by assuming that love is to be placed in the “works” category, implicitly presupposes that there is no such thing as agape as a supernaturally infused *virtue.* If living faith is the supernaturally infused virtue of faith informed by the supernaturally infused virtue of agape, then living faith precedes all *acts* of agape, but does not precede the *virtue* of agape, because living faith is constituted, in part, by the virtue of agape, and therefore cannot precede the virtue of agape.
Oops. Missed this one. Rome emphatically doesn’t do perspicuity. Got it.
IOW scholastic obscurantism is eloquence, however opaque.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 18, 2012 at 5:05 pm
JSM52 (#52): Where in Romans or Galatians (to mention two epistles of Paul) is love explicitly defined or described as a virtue infused in the believer?
I can understand that I have Christ within through his Spirit. That God’s love in Christ has been shed abroad in my heart.
This is an important point. Opening yet another front, it should be noted that Christ dwells in our hearts by faith (Eph 3.17), which language is universally understood to refer to the Holy Spirit.
The fruit of the Spirit is love, among others; but “love” as a reified substance is never said in Scripture to dwell in us.
So that raises the question: What is this “love” that is infused in us? For Protestants, the answer is clear. Love is the fruit of the Holy Spirit dwelling in the heart by faith.
Catholics, however, seem to speak of love as a reified substance or even as a synonym for the Spirit Himself.
johnbugay said,
August 18, 2012 at 5:36 pm
Bryan #51 (following on Bob S’s thought in 88):
Schreiner, Moo, Jewett, and “most” other commentators view the phrase “God’s love … poured out into our hearts” (“ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ”) “to be a subjective genitive, so that the phrase denotes God’s love for us” (contra Pelagius [de Bruyn, 1993:90]; Wright 1995; 45].
Yes, Bryan, you and Wright have picked up the Pelagian meaning of this verse (from Pelagius’s Commentary on Romans).
So we can trace, if not an actual “Pelagian” thread, something very close to it, through Philo, 1 Clement, Pelagius, Wright, and Bryan Cross.
Maybe you can show us, from actual Roman Catholic doctrine, where “what the Holy Spirit infuses into the heart (Rom 5:5) is … a virtue”.
Brad B said,
August 18, 2012 at 10:06 pm
And when he was challenged, he reasoned from the scriptures and urged and praised others to do the same [showing confidence that the force of logic would prove him inspired]. In other words, Paul didn’t appeal to supernatural attestation of his interpretation, the Logos did it for him.
His was not a paradigm shift apart from the Law and Prophets, the paradigm shift was personal, having received eyes to see what was hidden in plain sight from those who do not have the Spirit of God. Imputed righteousness didn’t offend Paul’s systematic understanding of the Word of God, or he would’ve reasoned from the scriptures [with the Spirit of God alongside] to a different conclusion and Romans and Galatians would bear it out.
dgh said,
August 18, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Jason, so Peter and Augustine were Protestant modernists? Trent sure wasn’t “can’t-we-all-get-along” (not to mention that your quote from Acts hardly does justice to what’s happening there when Peter gets his first taste of bacon.
Bryan Cross said,
August 19, 2012 at 12:02 am
John B, (re: #90)
In the case of participation in the divine nature, the hard line between obj gen and sub gen breaks down. Agape in us is a participation in God’s love for Himself and for us. So the two are not mutually exclusive.
Pelagius viewed love for God as something man is capable of by nature, whereas in Catholic doctrine, agape is a supernatural virtue, which man cannot produce from himself or from the power of his own nature, but can only receive as a gratuitous gift of God. So it is not true that the Catholic doctrine of infused agape is Pelagian.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bob S said,
August 19, 2012 at 1:44 am
93. Regardless Bryan, the Roman gospel according to Trent is semi-pelagian, is it not? I seem to remember something about the Second Council of Orange in the 800’s.
Yeah, I know. I’m asking the wrong person, but the more rope you give somebody, the more string they get to push into a straight line. Or a white lie. After all, those who asked where agape is taught in Scripture got 51 for a reply.
Besides the Protestant criticism of Romanism is that it is synergistic, not monergistic. Man co-operates with God and his prevenient grace. Then through infusion of agape faith man performs the good works necessary to be judged righteous unto salvation. As above, while pelagians don’t require supernatural agape faith for good works, semi-pelagian synergists do. Yet to him that worketh salvation is not of grace, but a debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.Rom. 4:4,5.
Further Christ’s work on the cross at Calvary is received automatically at baptism and only removes the stain of original sin. For sins after baptism, the mass (re-sacrifice of Christ), confession and penance are required, not to mention the extra biblical distinction of venial and mortal sins.
On the other hand, monergism teaches that God graciously regenerates sinners dead in their trespasses who receive Christ’s imputed righteousness by faith and through the Holy Spirit working in them, can and do obey God out of gratitude. Yet their good works can add nothing to Christ’s work which saves them.
All of this, I grant , is elementary and redundant, but sometimes that’s what it takes. If not, I am sure I will be apprized of it promptly enough.
David Gadbois said,
August 19, 2012 at 4:47 am
As usual, Bryan’s bit of philosophizing and speculation in #93 does nothing to answer the exegetical question regarding whether or not Romans 5:5 is using a subjective genitive or not, or how one can establish that this passage has in mind his conception of agape as a virtue in us. It is his typical bit of evasion.
While it is certainly true that love can be conceived of as a virtue or moral character within a man, as distinguished from acts of love, and both can be respectively in view in various parts of Scripture, for Paul it doesn’t particularly matter as far as justification is concerned. In Romans 4 the actions mirror the inward essence of the man, the “ungodly” in character is the one “who does not work” in deed, yet he is the one God declares righteous.
Bryan said In the case of participation in the divine nature, the hard line between obj gen and sub gen breaks down. Agape in us is a participation in God’s love for Himself and for us.
It is not the case that the line can be blurred between our love and God’s love, such that what can be predicated of the latter can be predicated of the former, nor that the “objective and subjective” distinction breaks down. Our “participation” in God’s love does not erase the creator/creature distinction, nor does the fact that our love is Spirit-wrought. Insofar as love is a virtue that characterizes a person, and created persons are not the divine tri-personal being, then the love of the Christian is distinguished from God’s love, regardless of the fact that the Christian love is a gift from God and reflects the character of God’s love. Bryan points out the similarity in the objects of love, “for Himself and for us.” Quite right, but the subject of Christian love is the Christian person, the subject of divine love is the Creator. Bryan is peddling ontological gibberish.
Now did I really have to go through all of that to point out the obvious (at least, obvious to most dispassionate thinkers) regarding the fallacious nature of Bryan’s sophistry in attempting to blur these lines and distinctions? The answer is no.
The answer is no because Bryan’s musings on the matter are entirely irrelevant. They are ad hoc bits of theologizing in an attempt to sustain his arguments that he presents as a self-appointed internet apologist who bears no office, nor imprimatur, nor any sanction from Rome. It just happens that the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches contrary to his earlier reasoning:
From a Catholic point of view, what the Holy Spirit infuses into the heart (Rom 5:5) is not an *act* of love by those who receive it. Rather, the persons described in Rom 5:5 receive the virtue of agape, and a virtue is not an act.
Ahh, but don’t take your eye off the ball, the Catechism teaches that it is our *acts* of love, and our good works more generally, and not just our loving character or virtue (as constituents of living faith) that merits justification:
the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit….
The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness….
Grace, by uniting us to Christ in active love, ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and consequently their merit before God and before men.
So Bryan can’t take the “out” of trying to sift agape into some non-works category in order to avoid the condemnation of St. Paul in his attempt to pary Andrew Schreiber’s point in #48. The Catechism says “yep, it’s good *works* that merit justification”, not simply good or loving virtues by which living faith is formed.
johnbugay said,
August 19, 2012 at 8:08 am
Bryan 93:
Of course it breaks down”, because you need it to break down.
And thus, you know more than most commentators [except for Pelagius and N.T. Wright] who spend their lives studying Greek text and grammar. Because your need to avoid having an apparent contradiction become an actual contradiction at this point is acute. Because if an apparent contradiction becomes an actual contradiction at this point, or in fact, any of dozens of points that these discussions have located, then your Roman house of cards falls to the ground.
And conveniently, you have a whole Roman Tradition, which infallibly makes it so.
Bryan Cross said,
August 19, 2012 at 8:53 am
David, (#95)
What it means for God’s love to be poured out into our hearts is more than that God gives us knowledge of His love for us. By pouring love *into our hearts* it is shown to be in us, not just for us. And this is a love of friendship, as shown by it being in the heart, not as God loves trees and mountains, which cannot love Him in return. As a love of friendship, there must be love for God, in this case, by which we call Him Abba, Father. So granting that it is a subj gen does not detract from its meaning that the result of this pouring is, in our hearts, love *for* God. The resulting disposition of our hearts is not fundamentally *love for ourselves.* As poured out into the heart of the rational creature, its directionality is reversed, being fundamentally *love for God for God’s sake,* and then love of neighbor for God’s sake.
I also agree that this does not erase the Creator/creature distinction. Participation is not fusion.
As for the statements from the CCC, they are not contrary to what I said earlier. They are talking about the *increase* in justification through acts done in agape, whereas I was talking about *initial* justification, which is by the divine infusion of the supernatural virtue of faith informed by the supernatural virtue of agape, not by a meritorious human act.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 19, 2012 at 9:07 am
An observation…if I may. Then I promise…to go away.
Some of us reading at home are paying attention to all this Rome/Geneva discussion. And plan to read these comments intently someday.
What this reminds me of is a conversation over e-mail I had with friend, for about 2 or 3 years, over the nature of how I view that the Bible is the Word of God. My friend is older than me, and a very active mainline Episcopalian. He rejects an infallible Scripture.
I think what made our back and forth (at least from my side) eventually subside was when I showed him very clearly in WCF 1 that it’s the Holy Spirit that does the work of convincing me that the Bible is God’s Word. The West. divines were pretty explicit on this point.
But as regards Geneva and Rome, I am wondering if the people debating this topic see an end. Is there a vision, by either party, indepedent of the other’s vision, or is there a shared vision.
To me, it just looks like people arguing because that’s what they like to do. Mean of me to say? Well, sure. But that’s what I see.
I don’t mean to judge all ya’ll’s motives, or dismiss the very real issues at hand. But consider this post, is about a man, Jason Stellman, who left the PCA, and we’re still sitting around talking about these issues.
I guess I am just wondering if either party wants to explain a little bit of their “vision” of the way forward in this debate. I understand we must “press on,’ but does any reader know whether this blog is the only place for Mr. Calvin and Mr. Pope to have a discussion? Or might these two caricatures (characters?) find themselves on a golf course someday, sipping a coors light after 18 holes, just laughing about all the differences?
Maybe in heaven only. Anyhoo, back to my cave with John Owen’s writings, and not sure I will emerge. For those of you who have read some of John Owen…you know what I mean.
Peace,
Andrew
johnbugay said,
August 19, 2012 at 9:46 am
Bryan Cross #95 said:
But you are headed to “fusion”, and far earlier than what you are letting on. Are you practicing some sort of “mental reservation” with the folks here? It is the very “call to communion” that you have taken on as your identity. From Ratzinger’s “Called to Communion”:
This “fusion” does erase the Creator/creature distinction. Following his good buddy Teilhard de Chardin, Ratzinger is headed to an eschatological “omega point”, in which “the world itself shall become a living host, a liturgy. This is also the great vision of Teilhard de Chardin: in the end we shall achieve a true cosmic liturgy, where the cosmos becomes a living host”.
In fact, tell the truth, it would not be a misnomer if you changed the name of your site to “Called to Pantheism”. This is your great vision for justification.
Bryan Cross said,
August 19, 2012 at 3:21 pm
John B,
That’s a classic example of the word/concept fallacy.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 19, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Bryan 101 — it is not.
Bob S said,
August 19, 2012 at 4:22 pm
101 Word/concept fallacy?
That’s like agape list keeping is not the same thing as list list keeping thing over at OLTS, right? Just wanted to be sure, since my completely fallible private judgement keeps foaming and frothing and getting in the way of accepting any old arbitrary ipsit dixit that wanders down the pike.
isaiah said,
August 19, 2012 at 5:43 pm
Bob S,
The Second Council of Orange took place in the early 6th century and the Catholic Church continues to affirm all that was stated therein, just as they affirm much of Augustine’s writings (though not all: they rejected Augustinian views of predestination, namely, that God does not predestine certain humans for evil). What the Council was primarily concerned with is the role grace plays in both the beginning of the Christian life (its necessity in believing in the Gospel) and the continuation of life in Christ (its necessity in doing good works).
Nowhere, that I could tell, does it say that good works have no role in salvation. It does, however, say the following:
The necessity of God’s grace – both in the initial moments of conversion, and throughout our life in which we follow Christ’s example through works of charity and prayer – is undeniable for the Catholic. To say otherwise would be Pelagian, or Semi-Pelagian, heresy.
However, affirming that our salvation involves cooperation with the Spirit of God through good works – provided they are founded in Christ’s love and grace, which we can only have if we are God’s children by being born of water and the spirit – is decidedly neither Pelagian nor Semi-Pelagian.
Brad B said,
August 19, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Two imcompatible propositions, not to mention the first is contrary to a plain lesson by the apostle Paul namely:
Rom 9:24 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
Rom 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,
Rom 9:24 even us, whom He also called, not from among Jews only, but also from among Gentiles.
How silly of Augustine to read the apostle Paul plainly. btw, once again Pauls OT understanding being illuminated in NT teaching.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 12:24 am
John B, (re: #102)
If you think that the Catholic position and [then] Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement are pantheistic, you have seriously misunderstood them both. Here’s the Ratzinger quotation again with my clarifying comments in brackets:
This is not an obliteration of the Creator-creature distinction, but an affirmation of our union with Christ — a union in which while we retain our created being, our individuality, our personality, our intellect, our consciousness, our will, etc., we are united to Christ and His family by incorporation into His Body and participation in His divine life. The Catholic principle is that grace builds on nature; grace does not destroy nature (because we’re not Marcionites or Manicheans). If redemption obliterated the creature, that would go directly against the principle that grace builds on nature and does not destroy nature. It would be a Marcionite position, not a Catholic position.
In comment #98, when I said “participation is not fusion,” I was using the term ‘fusion’ in the sense of obliterating the Creator-creature distinction, as Horton uses the term in his The Christian Faith. To understand why participation is not fusion (in that sense of the term ‘fusion’) see my reply to Scott Clark in “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.”
In your response in comment #100, you quote then Cardinal Ratzinger using the term ‘fusion’ of our union with Christ, as if that shows that he (and the Catholic Church) believe in an obliteration of the Creator-creature distinction. But that’s a textbook case of the word-concept fallacy, because what Cardinal Ratzinger means by the term ‘fusion’ there is communion/participation, as is obvious from the rest of the book. Just because he used the same term does not mean that he meant it in the same way Horton means it when Horton uses the term.
I hope the discussion can now return to Lane’s reply to Jason.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:44 am
Bryan #106:
You said, “participation is not fusion”, and you have cavalierly sought to dismiss that, but there is far to it than what you have said here, and the folks deserve to have a clarification:
Here’s the Ratzinger quotation again with my clarifying comments in brackets:
This is not an obliteration of the Creator-creature distinction, but an affirmation of our union with Christ — a union in which while we retain our created being, our individuality, our personality, our intellect, our consciousness, our will, etc., we are united to Christ and His family by incorporation into His Body and participation in His divine life.
Yes, Let’s take a further “clarifying” look at what Joseph Ratzinger genuinely means by “communion” and “fusion”:
This is not a “one-time” thing that happens “at Communion”. This has eschatological aspects. Speaking of “the institution narrative”, he says:
This “fusion” you are talking about becomes permanent. It is no matter that “we retain our created being, our individuality, our personality, our intellect, our consciousness, our will, etc” No one remains an individual in this vision of things. Everyone is “assimilated”.
In the first place, you owe me an apology here for suggesting that I am making some kind of “word/concept” fallacy.
Second, you owe the members of this board an apology for your abject dishonesty in suggesting that “participation is not fusion”, and trying to slough off the rest of all this.
This discussion has a lot of range beyond merely the word “fusion” – there is much more to this – including the notion that “the church is the ongoing incarnation of Christ”, and the whole range of ontological aspects of where “infusion” language leads.
Rome goes even further and incorporates its own hierarchical leadership structure into this ontological soup – the papacy as a permanent part of the “structure” of the body – and that is the tie in with some of these Green Baggins discussions. But of course,
You have turned on its head the notion that “we should not attribute to our opponents positions that they will not own”.
You, in fact, are denying Roman positions at this point, for the sake of sparing these folks the full impact of the Roman position so that you can set some sort of “foundational” point for it.
But the Roman self-infatuation, in its desires to perpetuate its grandiose claims about itself, effectively repeats the promise of Satan: “You will be like God.”
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:46 am
Moderators: Can you please fix my broken “blockquote” after “pgs 110-111)”?
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:06 am
Bryan said What it means for God’s love to be poured out into our hearts is more than that God gives us knowledge of His love for us. By pouring love *into our hearts* it is shown to be in us, not just for us….So granting that it is a subj gen does not detract from its meaning that the result of this pouring is, in our hearts, love *for* God.
This is a far more reasonable statement than your previous post. I won’t quibble too much (Calvin disagrees with Augustine’s interpretation here, but still calls his sentiment “pious”), except to say that since the passage doesn’t actually mention our love for God, you must deduce that God’s love being poured into our heart produces this, but it is not a necessary implication of that fact or, at the least, is not Paul’s point here. In the context, it specifically links God’s love being poured into our heart as the basis of hope and endurance.
As for the statements from the CCC, they are not contrary to what I said earlier. They are talking about the *increase* in justification through acts done in agape, whereas I was talking about *initial* justification
Aside from the fact that this distinction is extra-biblical and, indeed, anti-biblical, St. Paul was also talking about “initial” justification throughout Romans 4 and 5, where Christ is said to have died for the “ungodly”, “enemies” and “sinners”, and even that God justifies the ungodly. Such have neither good works nor inward virtue (such as agape) nor good character. Trying to say that Paul only meant to exclude good works from (initial or otherwise) justification and not virtue is complete subterfuge and foreign to the text at hand.
Regarding the CCC, I’ll accept your explanation that you were talking about initial justification in distinction from the CCC’s discussion of the increase in justification. But even then, I find no basis in the CCC for your saying that the virtue of agape is instrumental in initial justification. It talks about repentance and baptism and the like, but no mention of agape: http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6Y.HTM
Response to Jason Stellman Part 1 – Green Baggins Blog | Pilgrimage to Geneva said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:02 am
[…] Response to Jason Stellman, Part 1 […]
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 10:06 am
John Bugay # 107.
Is it your argument that Pope Benedict advocates pantheism? Yes or no.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 10:08 am
John B., (re: #107)
Regarding Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement:
(This is actually on page 37, not 36.) Here again the term ‘fusion’ is not meant in the sense Horton (and you) are using it [i.e. as obliterating the Creator-creature distinction], but in the participation sense. The human soul is immortal, and so has an everlasting existence by nature. But in Catholic doctrine “eternal life” is distinct from mere everlasting existence. Eternal life is God’s own life. To receive eternal life is to be granted to share in God’s own life, but this sharing in God’s own life does not eliminate one’s createdness, or one’s created life. Otherwise there would be no participation; there would be only God, and no creatures. Participation would thereby destroy itself. By grace the creature is granted a participation in the divine nature (2 Pet 1:4). But grace does not destroy nature. This participation is a simultaneous sharing by a creature (who perpetually remains a creature) in a higher existence, namely, in God’s own eternal life, by God’s gratuitous gift. That’s what “fusion of existences” means here. We enter into and participate in the eternal communion that is the inner life of the Triune God. And that’s why the digestion analogy has to be understood in a qualified sense, not as destroying the individual, but as preserving him and all that belongs to him (except sin), while at the same time incorporating him into a higher existence, namely, the Body of Christ, perfectly conforming him to Jesus in heart, living by the same Spirit who is the Spirit of Jesus, and in this way making Him one with Christ who is the way, truth and life, thus perfectly imaging the Father, whose perfect image Christ is. Just as, contra the Eutychians, Jesus’ divine nature did not swallow up His human nature in the hypostatic union, so likewise our participation in the divine nature by the gift of grace does not swallow up or obliterate our human nature or our individuality.
So to use this quotation as evidence that Cardinal Ratzinger or the Catholic Church believes in “pantheism” is just another example of the word-concept fallacy, by mistakenly assuming that the term ‘fusion’ here must mean the obliteration of distinctions, not realizing that here it means the simultaneous possession of [and existence in] two natures: one by the gift of creation, and the other by the gift of grace.
David (re: #109)
CCC 1991 says, “Righteousness (or “justice”) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us.”
The term “divine love” is referring to the virtue of agape, and so is the term “charity,” which is the English translation of the Latin caritas, which is the Latin translation of the Greek term agape.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 10:53 am
Bryan 111 — Let “pantheism” = “a duck” in the following:
Protestants, too, believe in “eternal life”, which is distinct from “God’s own life” and as well, is distinct from mere everlasting existence, as you say. However, we use a biblical term and call this “glorification”, and digestion metaphors are not included in theologies of “glorification”.
We are talking about the writings of Joseph Ratzinger here. I would think that his “qualifications” (and you can plainly read what he says) are in no need of your “qualifiied sense”. In a volume that is written by the “Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”, which has also gone through all the Vatican censors, what he is saying here is perfectly well “qualified”, without your help. In fact, your “qualified sense” [given Ratzinger’s place] is clearly off the mark.
Your efforts to correct and qualify Ratzinger are laudable. But, when Ratzinger says “fusion”, he certainly means something different from what you mean by mere “participation”.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:14 am
John.
# 112
Does it matter that Pope Benedict affirms particular Christian doctrines that render pantheism impossible? For instance the Trinity and the Incarnation?
Does it matter that Pope Benedict had publically repudiated pantheism before in writing and public statements?
I really urge you to consider what you are saying.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:21 am
John.
# 112.
By they way, are you aware of any theologians or scholars of Benedict or pantheism that accuse Benedict and Catholicism of being panthestic besides yourself?
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:22 am
John B (re: #112),
These chapters of this book were originally lectures given to a hundred Catholic bishops. That was their intended audience. No qualification is necessary when a Catholic bishop and theologian speaks to other Catholic bishops well-immersed within the Catholic theological tradition. But to persons with no or very little theological training in the Catholic tradition, the words of a Catholic bishop and theologian speaking to other Catholic bishops may often need additional qualification and explanation, so as to avoid misunderstanding. The more immersed one is within a tradition, the more one is able to understand rightly others who speak and write within that tradition. Likewise, the less familiar one is with another person’s tradition, the less able one is to avoid misunderstanding that person’s speech and writing within that tradition, and thus the more one needs an interpreter or teacher.
And your notion that the Catholic Church believes in pantheism shows you to be quite unfamiliar with the Catholic theological tradition, and hence in need of someone to explain the meaning of quotations such as the ones you have cited.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:44 am
Bryan 115, I reject your notion that Ratzinger intended something that needs “qualification” when he is talking about fusion and digestion. He is perfectly capable of articulating Roman Catholic dogma no matter whom he is talking to. That is the point of your “formal proximate object of faith”. Your positing that “the words of a Catholic bishop and theologian speaking to other Catholic bishops may often need additional qualification and explanation, so as to avoid misunderstanding”, especially when he is speaking as plainly as he does, is perfectly ridiculous.
And even if they did need explanation, you are not in a position to provide the proper explanation.
And again, per 112, I do not suggest that “the Catholic Church believes in pantheism”. It is more complicated than that. Roman Catholicism simply has far too many [un-canonized] words in its doctrinal and theological writings to make the simple, and simplistic statement that “the Catholic Church believes in pantheism”.
However, what they give with one hand (i.e., an orthodox doctrine of God and the Trinity), they take away in an eschatology that invokes Teilhard de Chardin’s “omega point”, “the world becomes a living host”, etc.
I don’t claim to have investigated all the possibilities. But yes, let us put “something close to pantheism” on the table when discussing the endgame for “infused grace” and Roman Catholic eschatology.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:49 am
Bryan 115:
And again, even if you are right about this (which you are not), isn’t the publisher VERY IRRESPONSIBLE to have let this go out, not just under Ratzinger’s name, but re-issued with the sticker, “Pope Benedict XVI” without these “qualifications” that you seem to think are so necessary? And not just irresponsible of the publisher, but irresponsible of Ratzinger himself?
Your dissembling is truly unbelievable.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:50 am
John.
So, it does not matter to you that the Catholic Church formally and dogmatically rejects pantheism entirely and affirms doctrines completely contrary to pantheism?
You are still going to try to argue that the Catholic Church teaches ‘something close to pantheism.’
Is that a fair summary of your position?
Just want to make sure we’re clear.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 11:59 am
Sean Patrick, just so we’re clear, I’m rejecting your interpretation of what the Catholic Church formally and dogmatically says in any way, and I also reject your interpretation (or “qualification”) of what Joseph Ratzinger himself has said.
I let Joseph Ratzinger’s words stand for themselves.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 12:06 pm
So, you don’t care that Joseph Ratzinger has publically repudated tenats of pantheism and formally has embraced orthodox Trinitarian dogmas that render patheism impossible?
You are still going to try to argue that Pope Benedict teaches ‘something close to pantheism.’
“I let Joseph Ratzinger’s words stand for themselves.”
We do that as well. Therefore, we can say with certainty that Pope Benedict rejects pantheism entirely.
One more time, are you aware of any theologian or scholar besides yourself that puts forth that Pope Benedict teaches ‘something close to pantheism?’
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Sean, as I said, Rome (not just Ratzinger) gives with one hand, and takes away with the other. An orthdodox doctrine of God up front is no protection from a pantheistic concept at the end.
From this point out I am going to ignore your comments, so that any individuals coming to this comment thread can read Ratzinger’s own words and comments in #107:
The individuals here are perfectly capable of reading this — or the whole book, for that matter, and taking the proper meaning from it.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Sean Patrick,
I am sure that Pope B. rejects pantheism as a philosophy. But when John B. says, regarding this fusions issue, “what the RRC gives with one hand it takes away with the other,” highlights a problem with RCC theology. The “giving with one… and taking away with the other” also shows up in this whole discussion with Justification.
RCC says we believe in justification by faith in Christ by grace. Pretty good so far. Then it adds “working through love.” And then explains this in ways that takes away justification by faith in Christ by grace. Tacked onto justification by faith are “grace assisted works of love” or some such Christ-plus-scheme that reverses the order of – those God justifies, He sanctifies to those God sanctifies, He justifies.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Jack, (re: #122)
St. Paul does the same thing:
Notice that St. Paul places justification after sanctification and after washing. The washing refers to baptism, and refers to the removal of sin. ‘Sanctified’ refers to the immediate infusion of grace, faith, hope, and agape, by which we were ‘justified.’ If St. Paul had any notion that sanctification only follows justification, he would never have placed sanctification before justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 1:39 pm
John,
One more time, are you aware of any theologian or scholar besides yourself that puts forth that Pope Benedict teaches ‘something close to pantheism?’
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 20, 2012 at 1:48 pm
Jack,
Consider the following hypothetical exchange:
Paul, preaching: “We are children of God!”
Jack, listening: “This guy’s awesome.”
Paul: “And if children, then heirs; heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ…”
Jack: “Right on! This cat totally gets the whole grace thing.”
Paul: “… provided we suffer with him, in order that we may be glorified with him.”
Jack: “Aww, man! Why’d he have to go and take away with one hand what he gave with the other? He should have quit while he was ahead!”
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Jason 125, “this guy”, “this cat”, etc., was Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, when he wrote (and not hypothetically) what he wrote.
As Bryan has helpfully said, “the most helpful way to avoid accidentally misconstruing what I say, is always to quote me when claiming that I’ve said something, rather than attributing to me an interpretation you took from something I wrote” (comment 53).
Your trying to hypotheticalize something that Joseph Ratzinger wrote, is simply laughable.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 1:59 pm
John.
Why don’t you answer: Are you aware of any theologian or scholar besides yourself that puts forth that Pope Benedict teaches ‘something close to pantheism?’
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Jack.
Further to # 125, it is not established that Pope Benedict “takes away” orthodox Trinitarianism and puts in its place ‘pantheism.’
From the best that I can tell only one person has ever concluded this from the text, John Bugay.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Jason (re: 125),
Are you saying that before your move towards Rome (not sure if you are 100% there yet) you did not believe that your profession as a Christian required you to “suffer with Him that we may be glorified with Him?”
I feel like I’m talking to Chuck Smith here.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Without really knowing much…but hey, why not.
“giving with one… and taking away with the other”
I don’t know about other readers here, but it seems to me that God loves me unconditionally.
That’s a good thing,
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Jason,
It seems that in order to “win a point” you merely caricature the Protestant position, and me.
You sometimes give something serious with one hand, only to take it away with the other (like the above)…
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Andrew McC,
Paul doesn’t say, “We may profess to be Christians, provided we suffer with him.” He says, “We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him.”
“Ah, well, you know, I, uhh…. Glor ious and all.”
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Sean (128)-
I think John B. addressed this. But suffice to say, the “taking away with the other” has to with implications of the teachings of Pope B. above, not a formal declaration.
I’m not interested in establishing the pantheism-thing one way or the other. My point is the conflation of justification and sanctification.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Jack.
The ‘implications’ of what Pope Benedict wrote are only present if one commits the word/concept fallacy and completely disregards everything else that Pope Benedict teaches.
This is really quite obvious. To look at one passage and argue that the bishop of Rome ‘took away’ orthodoxy is just silly.
I mean, don’t you think that if Pope Benedict really “took away an orthodox doctrine of God” and replaced it with “pantheism” that somebody besides John Bugay would have noticed it?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Jack,
While I admit I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek there, there was a serious point to be heeded. Let me make it using a different example: One of WSC’s profs was challenging me a couple months ago, saying, “How much participation, Jason? How much is needed to be saved? How many works? That’s the question you’re constantly going to have to answer if you go down this road.”
My response was that the exact same questions could have been asked by the crowd to Jesus when he said that unless you bear your cross you can’t be his disciple, and unless you do his commands you will not be finally saved, or of Paul when he said that if we sow to the Spirit we will reap eternal life: “How much cross-bearing, Jesus? How much obedience? What degree of Spirit-sowing do I have to perform to reap heaven, Paul?”
In other words, the NT writers themselves seem to fall prey to your charge of sounding gracious at first, but then “adding” some other requirement.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Jason 133:
blockquote>“We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him.”
There is an exegetical treatment of this verse, and an exegetical treatment of this verse that takes into account what theologians of the first five centuries have had to say about it.
But if you think that it takes an infallible Magisterium to provide some “formal proximate object of faith” to understand this verse, then consider the backflips that your comrades are exercising in order to separate Joseph Ratzinger from the meaning of his words.
And I could provide two paragraphs or two chapters from that work, and you still have the man fusioning existences and assimilating “I’s”.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:46 pm
Catechism of The Catholic Church:
In Brief –
2017 The grace of the Holy Spirit confers upon us the righteousness of God. Uniting us by faith and Baptism to the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Spirit makes us sharers in his life.
2018 Like conversion, justification has two aspects. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, and so accepts forgiveness and righteousness from on high.
2019 Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us. It has for its goal the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life. It is the most excellent work of God’s mercy.
2023 Sanctifying grace is the gratuitous gift of his life that God makes to us; it is infused by the Holy Spirit into the soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it.
2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
An explanation on the above:
“The Gospel cannot be preached truly unless we believe that Christ’s sacrifice alone is all that is needed to take away human sin. Rome does teach this in their Catechism of the Catholic Church, but on the same exact page they restate their belief that the merits of the saints can be applied by the Church to remit human sins.
“May I suggest that this apparent self-contradiction is because Rome confuses Tradition with precedent? The burden of having to keep every doctrine ever taught, instead of weighing truth against error by the standard of Scripture with Universal Consensus and Antiquity, creates a disability that hinders direct and powerful proclamation of the Gospel. They want to proclaim that Christ’s sacrifice alone is full and sufficient, but they are in bondage to a Medieval error that ought to be tossed out. This is no small matter. It must be thoroughly discussed and cleared up.” (Robert Hart @ The Anglican Continuum)
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:57 pm
Part of the issue is that Rome does not write its doctrinal statements in the same style as Protestants (or indeed, as Thomas Aquinas, e.g.).
The language used in Roman Catholic doctrinal pronouncements is sometimes fluid and capable of widely disparate interpretation.
So while Sean P is no doubt correct that Rome has repudiated pantheism, here Ratzinger uses language that could be understood pantheistically
Aside: and syncretistically as well … We could go farther and say that ultimately this is where all the great streams of the history of religions meet together, for the most profound knowledge of the myths had been that of the world’s being built up on sacrifice, and in some sense, beneath shadowy forms that were often taught, it was being taught that, in the end, God himself must become a sacrifice so that love might prevail over hatred and lies.
Really? That’s what the Iliad was all about? I thought it was about an angry man. Boy, I must have slept through freshman English.
/Aside
As an example of linguistic fluidity, consider the Catholic Catechism on justification:
One reading this might think that faith is the instrument that justifies. But then …
and again,
Oops, misread that. It turns out that baptism is the instrument that justifies, and any faith prior to baptism doesn’t count as justifying faith, because faith must be expressed in baptism to justify.
Unless one dies before baptism, with the intent of being baptized. Except for the thief on the cross.
And I’m light-heartedly poking fun here, but with a real point: the slipperiness of the language leads to a theology that contains exceptions and loopholes. Whether this is good or bad, I won’t say; I can see both advantages and disadvantages. On the whole, I much prefer the straight-up style of the Confession.
Bryan, some of our frustration in communication comes down, I believe, to a difference in these writing styles.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 2:59 pm
# 138.
Jack.
The CCC is not ‘giving grace’ and then ‘taking it away.’ The CCC is simply presenting Catholic soteriology. You only see a ‘giving and taking away’ because you agree with the part it ‘gives’ and when you disagree with the rest say, “oh, they took it away.’
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Jeff.
# 139
“And I’m light-heartedly poking fun here, but with a real point: the slipperiness of the language leads to a theology that contains exceptions and loopholes. “
Respectfully, it would not be hard at all to read the WCOF and imagine the same kind of ‘exceptions’ and ‘loopholes.’
What is it saying to say that a word or phrase here or there ‘could be taken’ to mean something that it doesn’t mean? That is not a unique feature to the writing of Pope Benedict.
What John Bugay is doing is taking a statement and saying that it does mean what it clearly does not mean.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Sean Patrick – 140,
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us.
2025 We can have merit in God’s sight only because of God’s free plan to associate man with the work of his grace. Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration. Man’s merit is due to God.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
Words have meaning. I’m reminded of the Paul Simon song lyric, “slip-sliding along…”
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Jack # 142.
I don’t see your point.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Jason (#136): I don’t think you’ve grasped the difference entirely.
When a Protestant wrestles with “how much is enough?”, his theology, informed by Hebrews, sends him to faith in Jesus.
I had to wrestle with this issue in the early 90s after reading MacArthur’s Lordship Salvation, and in the end I had to conclude that whatever deficiencies my works had, the only remedy was to hold fast to Jesus, the anchor of my soul. If my works so far had demonstrated that I was not really a believer, then from this moment forward I needed to trust Jesus.
When a Catholic wrestles with this issue … well, I’m not Catholic, so I have to imagine a bit. Naturally, I am open to correction. But it seems to me that the theology of Purgatory … which, by the way, is not derived from Jesus’ teachings nor Paul’s but from Tradition — so much for making sense of the Biblical data! … that the theology of Purgatory combined with the Catholic doctrine of free-will as a response to grace, forces the individual to introspect.
Having been ‘initially justified’ by faith (or baptism?), Joe Catholic must now really wonder whether his works are sufficient to merit eternal life; and if not, then are we looking at Purgatory or Hell? Were my sins mortal, and what if I get hit by a bus before confessing a mortal sin? Am I going to be the wicked servant of the parable, or will I be the 1 Cor 3 guy that gets in with all the works burned to straw?
Both the Catholic and the Protestant do have to wrestle. But wrestling with merit on the line is different from wrestling with what evidence means.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:18 pm
Here is an example of what I am talking about:
Jonathan Edwards wrote:
Source.
Now, that COULD be taken as pantheistic. that Edwards believed the thunder and lightning were literally part of God. But, that would be reckless of me wouldn’t it?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Sean (#143 in re jsm52’s point): How about this. Three theses for debate
P1: The Catholic doctrines of the atonement and of justification cannot be rationally reconciled.
For the Catholic holds that Jesus’ death on the cross bore our punishment, but not our guilt. But he also holds that Jesus’ death secures cleansing from guilt, but not remission of punishment.
P2: The Catholic doctrines of merit cannot be rationally upheld.
For the Catholic holds that the Treasury of Merit is filled first by the merit of Christ on the cross. But this merit is of infinite quantity, and cannot therefore rationally increase by any amount. But he also holds that our works are meritorious and increase the treasury.
P3: The Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is logically unnecessary.
For the Catholic holds that Purgatory is necessary because our sins can be forgiven, but satisfaction for the punishment of our sins must still be paid.
But no man can be rationally punished if he is not guilty. And if his guilt is forgiven and he is “washed as white as snow”, then it would be unjust to punish him for a crime of which he bears no guilt.
And God is not unjust.
Further, the Catholic holds that Purgatory is necessary because our cleansing must take place before we see God (to which Protestants agree).
Yet there is no particular reason that our cleansing might not occur at the moment of death. Catholics already believe that the Pope has power to dispense grace arbitrarily from the Treasury of Merit and remit some or all of the penalty of sin.
It is therefore obviously possible for God to do the same. And Purgatory is therefore superfluous.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:28 pm
Sean (#141, 145): First, I’m not joining into the thesis that Ratzinger is, in fact, a pantheist. I think it’s unlikely.
That said, you wouldn’t be the first to notice that John Edwards’ writings can be interpreted pantheistically, and he has been criticized for it. But Protestant ministers don’t claim the same kind of authority as Catholic teachers, especially ones so high up the chain.
So it is fair to notice that Ratzinger has made some remarkably uncareful statements here.
And yes, the Confession is also subject to misunderstanding. But much less so. I remember the first time I read the Confession as a non-Presby, and I was struck by its clarity and forthrightness.
The CCC doesn’t read in the same way.
Again, that’s not a value judgment, for there are advantages to using fluid language. But it’s certainly a valid observation about style.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Jeff.
# 147.
“First, I’m not joining into the thesis that Ratzinger is, in fact, a pantheist. I think it’s unlikely.”
That is a relief.
I kept pressing for John to name one other Scholar/Theologian who held his position because it seems that John is the only person alive that has accused Pope Benedict of pantheism. So, on that basis alone I don’t agree that Pope Benedict’s words were ‘reckless.’ Nobody else walked away confused and thinking that the Catholic Church took away orthodoxy and replaced it with pantheism. This is just a snippet from the works of Pope Benedict that John honed in on to push forth his agenda.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Well, certainly unguarded statements give opportunities for one’s enemies.
But the greater danger is that unguarded statements give ammunition for ‘forward thinkers’ who like to ‘move tradition along.’
And I don’t think it’s particularly controversial to say that Catholics have those within their clerical ranks, right?
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Jeff 147 — “it is fair to notice that Ratzinger has made some remarkably uncareful statements here”.
This is the doctrinal watchdog of the church — the Prefect of the CDF, speaking to other members of the infallible magisterium.
“Uncareful” is quite an understatement, and also, it is quite unthinkable in an organization that professes to infallibly provide “the formal proximate object of faith”. Think of the confusion his “uncareful” statements must have caused among the thinking bishops present!
Did they all simply say, “Hear Hear!, Peter has spoken through Ratzinger!”
Or rather, if he is “uncareful”, where are the Roman Catholic voices “cautioning” him about such statements? You, as a Protestant, certainly can challenge him. But who else?
Think of poor Bryan and Sean here, doing the heavy lifting, separating the Prefect for the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the very doctrinal watchdog of the Infallible Church, from the meaning of these “uncareful” statements.
The Roman Catholic world may rest infallibly again.
(By the way, is Burton watching this?)
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Bryan said The term “divine love” is referring to the virtue of agape, and so is the term “charity,” which is the English translation of the Latin caritas, which is the Latin translation of the Greek term agape.
That’s all well and good, but the CCC doesn’t say that this charity/love is the instrument by which we receive justification. It says “With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts.” So love/charity seems to be given either simultaneously to the gift of justification, or perhaps a result of it. Curiously, the Catechism can’t even bring itself to say that it is received *by faith*, much less by love/charity/agape.
Notice that St. Paul places justification after sanctification and after washing. The washing refers to baptism, and refers to the removal of sin. ‘Sanctified’ refers to the immediate infusion of grace, faith, hope, and agape, by which we were ‘justified.’ If St. Paul had any notion that sanctification only follows justification, he would never have placed sanctification before justification.
Yikes, that’s an exegetical howler. The order of the elements in Paul’s sentence does not (at least, necessarily) indicate a chronological nor causal priority. The rest is mere assertion on your part – it is contested that the “washing of regeneration” refers to baptism. Some commentators accept that it refers to baptism (including some Reformed commentators), others don’t. And not all (or perhaps even most) Protestant commentators interpret this instance of “sanctification” to refer to our conception sanctification as the growing of holiness in the Christian life, they either conceive of it as referring to a general “setting apart” or else a definitive sanctification. The text really underdetermines the issue, but there are no contextual clues that it refers to “an immediate infusion of grace, faith, hope, and agape” and the grammar here does not establish that this sanctification is the means by which they are justified.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Jeff # 149.
I don’t disagree. I remember a few years ago when a single paragraph taken from a 300 page book was bolstered around the media which was accompanied by the conclusion that the Pope ‘approved condoms for prostitutes.’ Of course, that is not what he said. I don’t think this is new and particular to the Pope, however.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:45 pm
John B, I appreciate much of what you have to say but I’m afraid that the issue of Pope B.’s alleged pantheism is too far afield of the topic here.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:47 pm
John.
I think you are giving yourself too much credit. Knocking down your argument did not require any heavy lifting at all : )
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:52 pm
David G 153, just trying to wrap some context around the fusion/participation thing.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Jeff Cagle, I too was thinking to myself yesterday how exceedingly poorly-written the CCC is on justification, even setting aside the fact that I think the theology is bunk. Some of it is due to the incoherence of, for instance, mixing merit and grace. But it just seems like someone took a bunch of words on the subject, threw them into a blender, and hit “puree”.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 3:59 pm
And Sean — a kind word to you from a Protestant and an all-around agreement “uncareful statements” by your Cardinal Watchdog [on these few comments — he’s written much more along these lines] is hardly a “knockdown” of my argument, and nor is it anything that you should be happy about.
Sean Patrick said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:05 pm
John #157.
My final word on this – there is no doubt in my mind that Pope Benedict is not a pantheist and does not teach ‘something close to pantheism.’ No Catholic thinks that. As far as I can tell, no other person in the world thinks that except for you.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:17 pm
As far as I can tell, no other person in the world thinks that except for you.
They said that to Luther, too.
But no, I’m not making that comparison. As far as I can tell, Pope Ratzinger will be replaced soon by Pope Somebody Else, and that new person will have his own “remarkably uncareful” statements as well.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:27 pm
Jason S said My response was that the exact same questions could have been asked by the crowd to Jesus when he said that unless you bear your cross you can’t be his disciple, and unless you do his commands you will not be finally saved, or of Paul when he said that if we sow to the Spirit we will reap eternal life: “How much cross-bearing, Jesus? How much obedience? What degree of Spirit-sowing do I have to perform to reap heaven, Paul?”
But there is a fundamentally different answer the Protestant can give, based on the fact that we do not habitually commit the fallacy of reading verses that use *conditional* statements (such as Rom 8:17) regarding works and eternal life as *causal* statements. The answer is, the amount of cross-bearing/obedience that is needed to fulfill the condition is whatever amount, number, and quality of good works God has prepared in advance for us to do between our conversion and death (Eph. 2:10). Since Christ has satisfied the demands of God’s justice for us, we don’t have to wonder if we have done enough good works and accumulated enough merit to supplement the work of the Cross.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:29 pm
Jeff, (re: #144)
Actually, you don’t have to imagine or speculate out loud. There’s another option: simply ask a Catholic.
Reformed persons need to introspect to know whether they are elect-for-glory. So the requirement of introspection applies to both.
I’ve never met a Catholic who asks himself that question. We examine ourselves to see whether we are in a state of grace. Being in a state of grace at death is sufficient for attaining eternal life. It has nothing to do with trying to determe how much merit one’s works have attained to that point.
These GB conversations continually reveal how far we have to go before we even understand each other.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bob S said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:30 pm
John, Jeff, DG, et al, whether pantheism, justification or whatever, the Roman tactic seems to be all about pumping out more and more bull schtick. Don’t stop to retract per se and only clarify by further confusing things.
But if God cannot communicate perspicuously, and we are made in his image, well connect the dots and give up a reasonable faith for a head first cannonball into Teilhard’s mysticism. It’s got to be as cool, hip and refreshing as Humpty Dumpty’s version of fusion only means what Chuck Smith says it means.
Bob S said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:42 pm
These GB conversations continually reveal how far we have to go before we even understand each other.
That’s a howler. Your for-all-practical-purposes-completely-fallible private judgement can’t even understand itself, much more somebody else’s opinion of their own PJ in order to come to some sort of Roman version of ecumenicism.
Was I baptized? Did I go to church on the five holy days this year and take communion? Did I commit any mortal sins, much more commit the venial/mortal? sin of not going to confession to confess my mortal sins? Then I am in a state of RC grace, but purgatory might await.
Do I believe in and confess Christ? Then I am in the catholic state, not Vatican, of grace.
cordially
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:43 pm
While there is something amusing about watching the defense of Ratzinger by those who serve him, the matter is not quite as cut and dried as they may like to believe.
On the one hand, Ratzinger has (on a variety of occasions) identified pantheism as an error. He used the word “pantheism” to do so (an example is present in my comments below). So far so good. But what does he consider to be heretical pantheism? One can engage in the word-concept fallacy on either side of the orthodox-heretical divide.
So, it would be helpful to see whether he has embraced any teachings that have already been condemned as pantheistic. Thankfully, we don’t have to a detailed comparison of his teachings to see if they line up with someone like John Scotus,
After all, Ratzinger/Benedict XVI characterized John Scotus thus: “In fact, John Scotus represents a radical Platonism that sometimes seems to approach a pantheistic vision, even though his personal subjective intentions were always orthodox.”
He goes on to state: “John Scotus, here too using terminology dear to the Christian tradition of the Greek language, called this experience for which we strive “theosis”, or divinization, with such daring affirmations that he might be suspected of heterodox pantheism.”
And not only was Scotus (whom Ratzinger defends) suspected of heterodox pantheism, after his death his work was condemned for this heresy by a regional council and Honorius III in 1225 ordered all copies of the offending book (the very one that Ratzinger goes on to quote with approval from) to be burnt.
So, perhaps Bryan Cross can explain to us why we should accept the teaching of Benedict XVI as orthodox, given that it seems to endorse the teaching of John Scotus, condemned by Honorius III. (The quotations above are from Benedict XVI’s general audience June 10, 2009.)
And then, and perhaps this is key, he explain why we are able to judge the orthodoxy of Scotus based on his writings (praised by one pope, condemned by another), but we lack the authority to judge what doctrines the Bible teaches.
– TurretinFan
P.S. If Honorius III can be forgiven for seeing pantheism in Scotus (assuming he was wrong to do so), perhaps Bugay can be forgiven for seeing pantheism in Benedict XVI (since at least he would seem at least to have Honorius III on his side).
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 4:51 pm
I recognize that my comment #164 explores a tangent that may be better addressed “off-line.” I have posted essentially the same comment to my own blog (link below), in case the conversation is better had there.
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2012/08/ratzinger-scotian-pantheist.html
-TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Bryan (#161): Reformed persons need to introspect to know whether they are elect-for-glory.
They don’t need to, but I will give you this much: some do. And in fact, in some Reformed margins (H. Hoeksema, e.g.), there is an emphasis on this.
But for Calvin, the question of election was not to be introspected upon. One looked to the promises of God and rested in them. Faith looks to the object, not the subject.
BC: There’s another option: simply ask a Catholic.
I suppose I could. But would a Catholic answer my question? I seem to have about a 20% success rate in getting my questions answered.
JRC: Joe Catholic must now really wonder whether his works are sufficient to merit eternal life;
BC: I’ve never met a Catholic who asks himself that question. We examine ourselves to see whether we are in a state of grace.
Well, OK, then why is there such an emphasis in this discussion on passages that allegedly show that works done in love are needed to merit eternal life, and that those without works (like the wicked servant) are cast into Hell?
And how would you know that you are in a state of grace other than by your works and/or sins? For the CCC rejects subjective feelings as a measure of being in a state of grace.
I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just don’t understand how what you’re saying squares with what you’ve been previously saying.
BC: These GB conversations continually reveal how far we have to go before we even understand each other.
Amen.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:32 pm
David, (re: #109)
Of course they don’t have the virtues of faith, hope, and agape before regeneration. But in the Catholic paradigm that’s precisely what they receive at the moment of regeneration, when God justifies them.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Bryan (#166): To anticipate an objection — I have indeed asked this question of several former Catholics, and their unanimous testimony was that they had “Catholic guilt” in spades.
You may argue that this shows that they didn’t understand Catholicism (“no true Irishman”?), but it also helps explain why they are no longer Catholic.
isaiah. said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:54 pm
Observation:
All this talk about “slippery” – or perhaps just “confusing” – language, whether as said by this theologian or that, this confession or that: has anyone besides me ever been utterly perplexed by what exactly that great Theologian and Doctor of the Church, the esteemed and holy Paul, is saying from one epistle or one chapter (or one verse!) to the next?
If I read commentaries and catechisms (indeed, even blogs and their combox-ers – but only when I’m desperate) to help me understand the Scriptures, it’s because the things said therein, by Paul, Peter – heck, even Our Lord Himself – just aren’t crystal clear. As evidence, why would we be arguing amongst ourselves if there were only one interpretation of the Scriptures on justification and salvation and faith (and their interaction)?
Maybe this point is obvious only to me (though I doubt that very much). But, if everybody here thinks the Scriptures are crystal clear and unambiguous about all the things that have been raised in this blog post alone, then I guess I’ve been lurking around the wrong blog.
Anyway: just sayin’.
-ih.
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:55 pm
David G 156:
Bob S 162:
Jeff C 166:
Can anyone see why someone who wanted to take this all seriously (i.e. me, and from the inside even!) would first of all become cynical about it, and second, make the conscious decision to warn people about it?
And … why a really smart and cosmopolitan guy like Jason Stellman, who spent so much time not being able to understand it, would think, “hey, this is more than I can understand, so it must be right”?
Same sort of experience that the disciples of Hegel had, I hear.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm
TF (re: #164),
The aspects of Scotus which Pope Benedicts commends are not the errors for which his work was later condemned. So in no way does his general audience on Scotus call his [i.e. Pope Benedict’s] orthodoxy into question.
I don’t assume that you are able to judge rightly concerning the orthodoxy of Scotus. I don’t assume that apart from the Church I could rightly judge such a thing.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Jeff (re: #166)
It is not “needed” in the absolute sense, as if all baptized babies who die before doing some good work go to hell. We get to, i.e. have the opportunity to, love God through our thoughts, words, and actions. Those who choose not to, have made themselves their own god, and chosen the way of perdition.
But the person who is treating good works as some burdensome chore that must be done to get to heaven is thinking like a Pharisee — with the law external to him. God loves a cheerful giver. Those who by their lives show love for God, reap the reward of that love, which is union with the Beloved, i.e. eternal life.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:15 pm
From BC @ 167: But in the Catholic paradigm that’s precisely what they receive at the moment of regeneration, when God justifies them.
From BC @ 124: Notice that St. Paul places justification after sanctification and after washing. The washing refers to baptism, and refers to the removal of sin. ‘Sanctified’ refers to the immediate infusion of grace, faith, hope, and agape, by which we were ‘justified.’
CCC 2019: Justification includes the remission of sins, sanctification, and the renewal of the inner man.
So, let’s see –
– justified precisely at the moment of regeneration…
or
– justified after sanctification and after washing… the removal of sin… the infusion of grace, faith, hope, and agape…
or
sanctification is included in justification…
Are we clear yet?
To repeat the quote from my 138:
“May I suggest that this apparent self-contradiction is because Rome confuses Tradition with precedent? The burden of having to keep every doctrine ever taught, instead of weighing truth against error by the standard of Scripture with Universal Consensus and Antiquity, creates a disability that hinders direct and powerful proclamation of the Gospel. They want to proclaim that Christ’s sacrifice alone is full and sufficient, but they are in bondage to a Medieval error that ought to be tossed out. This is no small matter. It must be thoroughly discussed and cleared up.”
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Jeff (re: #166)
Of course what we do, and why we do it, indicate what is in our heart, and whether we are in a state of grace. But that’s an altogether different question from “are my works sufficient to merit eternal life.”
I don’t know which question you are referring to, but changing religions because one feels guilt is not necessarily a good thing. If one is guilty, and needs to address sin in one’s life, one should feel guilt. The feeling of guilt, in such a case, is there for a God-given reason, to lead to repentance. Many people are practicing grave sins (e.g. pornography, fornication, etc.) and they feel guilty because they know that what they are doing is wrong.
So the I-want-a-religion-in-which-I-feel-no-guilt phenomenon is, in my opinion, a form of ecclesial consumerism, and worship of self. But, it is also possible that persons not well catechized (and there are many of them) feel guilty for things that they ought not feel guilty. This is the problem of scrupulosity, and a good spiritual director is typically needed to resolve it, for a person struggling with this problem.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Bryan said Of course they don’t have the virtues of faith, hope, and agape before regeneration. But in the Catholic paradigm that’s precisely what they receive at the moment of regeneration, when God justifies them.
I never said anything about “before regeneration”, nor does St. Paul mention regeneration at this juncture. You are trying to wedge this in because you want the virtues instilled in regeneration to effect justification. But this is foreign to the text. It says the ungodly is reckoned righteous/justified, it doesn’t say the ungodly is made godly/righteous and then is justified.
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Jack, (re: #172)
It is not a temporal order, but a logical order, hence simultaneous.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:23 pm
David (re: #174),
In the Catholic paradigm, that’s just how God reckons an unregenerate person righteous, by making that person actually righteous, so that His reckoning is true.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:24 pm
Anyone who wants to debate the pantheism issue should go to the combox of the article on TurretinFan’s blog that he kindly posted above in #165.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Bryan said In the Catholic paradigm, that’s just how God reckons an unregenerate person righteous, by making that person actually righteous, so that His reckoning is true.
Super, too bad the Catholic paradigm is not found, indeed is contradicted by St. Paul in this very text.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:27 pm
BC –
How does justification logically follow sanctification (BC 124) while at the same time sanctification is logically included in justification (CCC 2019)?
I’m sure you have an answer. I’m just highlighting the maze-like complexity of RCC theology.
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:34 pm
jsm52, I think it is worthwhile to ask how the Greek grammar in Titus actually supports a logical or causal priority of sanctification.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Bryan, I think these cases were more the ‘scrupulosity’ case; sadly, it was encouraged by their spiritual mentors.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm
David,
I’m no Greek student… I’ll ask, how does it? Answer away, my friend!
Jack
David Gadbois said,
August 20, 2012 at 6:57 pm
jsm52, I meant ask Bryan. See my point on this at #151 (final paragraph).
johnbugay said,
August 20, 2012 at 7:05 pm
David 151, JSM 182:
Of course that would be because “Catholics have always looked to the Tradition; we seek to determine how the Church has understood and explained the passage over the past two millennia”…
Thus, any error from any era can make its way into Catholic dogma, and no one is worse for the wear.
jsm52 said,
August 20, 2012 at 7:11 pm
David,
Again, not a “Greekie” – I was just handing it off to you. I have a feeling Bryan would find a way to conform the Greek to Tradition or any number of the multiple, yet conflicting, RCC teachings regarding sanctification. But, here goes:
Bryan,
“How does the Greek grammar in Titus actually support a logical or causal priority of sanctification?
David, please stay in the on-deck circle…
Andrew McCallum said,
August 20, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Jason said (133),
Paul doesn’t say, “We may profess to be Christians, provided we suffer with him.” He says, “We are children of God and joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him.”
Jason,
As Lane points out in the last paragraph of the opening post of this thread, the big issue here is whether those works we all agree are absolutely necessary are causative of our justification or evidentiary. You have picked up on some verses which you are sure are causative, but it’s just not obvious at all. Take the verse above. I’m sure you know that the Puritans pounded on these kinds of verses over and over again to impress on their listeners that we must suffer with Christ or we are not the children of God. But they were in no way bringing into question justification apart from works in the Reformed understanding of such things. And there is no reason why we need to posit any kind of contradiction. But you are convinced for reasons I am not sure of (other than the fact that you now more closely associate with a Roman confession than a Genevan one) that the statement that being the children of God necessitates our suffering with him means that such suffering becomes part of what God uses to justify us.
From the Reformed perspective – Yes, we MUST evidence works (such as those associated with suffering for Christ) if we are truly the children of God. But no, these are not causative of our justification. Is there any reason to assume a contradiction?
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Bryan:
You wrote: “The aspects of Scotus which Pope Benedicts commends are not the errors for which his work was later condemned. So in no way does his general audience on Scotus call his [i.e. Pope Benedict’s] orthodoxy into question.”
a) Yes, they were (“… daring affirmations that he might be suspected of heterodox pantheism … “).
b) If my above demonstration was insufficient, note that he goes on to state, in so many words: “In fact, the entire theological thought of John Scotus is the most evident demonstration of the attempt to express the expressible of the inexpressible God, based solely upon the mystery of the Word made flesh in Jesus of Nazareth.”
c) Praising a work that was condemned by his predecessor would be enough to call his orthodoxy into question, even in the absence of specific praise of his apparently pantheistic teachings and of his “entire theological thought.”
“I don’t assume that you are able to judge rightly concerning the orthodoxy of Scotus. I don’t assume that apart from the Church I could rightly judge such a thing.”
Your church provides contradictory guidance. Honorius III condemns and insults the book, Benedict XVI praises and quotes the book. Which pope will you pick?
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 20, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Oops – reading sequentially, I now see the admonition to go to my blog. I have cross-posted my reply there.
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:14 am
David, (re: #178)
Which verses in Romans 4 and 5 do you think contradict the Catholic paradigm? From my point of view, all the verses of those two chapters fit perfectly into the Catholic paradigm.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:21 am
Jack (re: #179)
Justification (in the sense of having the righteousness of God) follows logically (but not temporally) the infusion of agape. What CCC 2019 means is that sanctification is included in the justification event, precisely because sanctification must logically precede it. No one is justified who does not have infused agape. In order to be justified, one must have agape poured into one’s heart.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bob S said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:22 am
184 John
Again, Scripture is not sufficient or capable of addressing, much more correcting dysfunctional family traditions, lexicons or vocabulary. Perish the thought. May it never be. Long live the infallible Magisterium.
But I liked the last line:
Now I don’t know about you, but maybe, just maybe reformed catholics are right up there with the pagans and miss out on the richer, fuller Roman Catholic context. As far as the insider POV goes, DT King nailed it when he called it gnosticism.
Bryan likes to play the epistemological shell game and flirt, if not fornicate with equivocation. As for the” let your yea be yea, and your nay nay”, not so much. You can’t understand me and I can’t understand you because I represent such a richer tradition and context. Or maybe I am not such an articulate un-appointed spokesman in the first place and I ought to stand down and shut up.
And now I am going to take my own advice, and be a good example for Bryan and Jason.
ciao
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:29 am
Jack, (re: #185)
Here’s the passage:
Here too the means by which Christ saves us is through the washing of regeneration (i.e. baptism), and renewing by the Holy Spirit. So the washing refers to the removal of sin, and the renewal by the Holy Spirit refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which includes the gifts of sanctifying grace, faith, hope, and agape by which the Holy Spirit is not merely present (as omnipresent) but in communion with us. In this way we were justified by His grace, and made heirs. What make us heirs is having a participation in the divine nature, and thus the indwelling of the Spirit of Jesus. In this way we become co-heirs with Christ. So here to the washing and inner renewal by grace and the Holy Spirit is the means by which we are justified and made heirs of eternal life.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
David Gadbois said,
August 21, 2012 at 2:32 am
Bryan said Which verses in Romans 4 and 5 do you think contradict the Catholic paradigm? From my point of view, all the verses of those two chapters fit perfectly into the Catholic paradigm.
St. Paul says that God is the one who “justifies the ungodly” in Romans 4:5. It will not do to respond that the “Catholic paradigm” understands that “justification” to include inward renewal/making inwardly righteous. That definition of “justifies” has no lexical basis in the Greek text. Nor is there a basis for that in the immediate context of this chapter. Nor is there basis for that in the rest of Paul’s writings.
You are not lifting a finger to demonstrate that the Catholic paradigm is Paul’s paradigm, as is par for the course for your comments. You are obsessed with what paradigms can be crammed, shoehorned, and crow-barred in and made to “fit” the text, rather than the paradigms the text actually establishes. Inserting a definition of “justification” from the CCC into the text and saying “hey, it fits” is doing theology in reverse. It is not only unscholarly, but impious, as it demonstrates contempt for treating the Word of God seriously.
David Gadbois said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:14 am
It is most difficult to believe that Bryan is debating in good faith when his “answer” to Jack’s (and my) question in #192 in no way resembles an exegetical argument from the text of Titus 2, as if we wouldn’t notice. If he is debating in good faith then it is perhaps worse, because #192 then demonstrates his embarrassing and woeful incompetence in not even understanding what biblical exegesis is, and we might rightly wonder why we bother wasting any time reading and responding to any of the cyber-ink he spills.
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2012 at 6:29 am
Note what Bryan Cross did to Turretinfan. This should be an object lesson about Roman Catholic exegesis.
In 164, Turretinfan cites Pope Benedict XVI defending John Scotus Erigena, whose work “On the Division of Nature” (867) had been condemned in 1225 by a local council, and Pope Honorius III described his work as “swarming with worms of heretical perversity” and “ordered that all copies [of his book] should be burned”.
Benedict, as pope, said this about him: “In fact, John Scotus represents a radical Platonism that sometimes seems to approach a pantheistic vision, even though his personal subjective intentions were always orthodox.”
Bryan, without batting an eye, comes up with this (Comment 170):
This is not an actual, and quick, analysis on Bryan’s part. Bryan could care less what was actually said. Instead, Bryan needs to say this: “in no way does his general audience on Scotus call his [i.e. Pope Benedict’s] orthodoxy into question”.
So he does say it. And for Bryan, the need to guarantee the orthodoxy of a pope supercedes all else.
Whatever anyone else’s real intentions were, whatever they actually said, “in no way is the pope’s orthodoxy in question.”
It’s his ruling assumption. Whatever the pope says is not in question. This is “the obedience of faith”, and it supercedes even the logic that he professes to profess.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 21, 2012 at 7:25 am
Bryan (#191): Justification (in the sense of having the righteousness of God) follows logically (but not temporally) the infusion of agape.
So this does seem to create a small problem, for Paul says that God justifies the ungodly. But here, you say that we are made godly, then justified.
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 8:07 am
David (re: #194),
The assumption that the meaning of a term is dictated by a lexicon, rather than by the Tradition, is part of the Protestant paradigm, as explained here. So here you are using a presupposition of the Protestant paradigm, to argue that the verses of Romans 4-5 do not fit into the Catholic paradigm. What I’m asking is for you to support, in a non-question-begging way, your claim (in #179) that the Catholic paradigm “is contradicted by St. Paul in this very text.”
I was awarded the Exegesis Prize by the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary, as the top exegete of my graduating class. So, I know how to exegete. Your reasoning mistake here is assuming that when I do not exegete, that therefore I do not know how to exegete. In actuality, the meaning of a text is often not an exegetical question, because exegesis per se underdetermines the hermeneutical conclusion. If you think what I said about the meaning of the Titus passage is falsified by exegesis, feel free to show how.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 8:07 am
Jeff (re: #197)
Actually, that’s not what I said. They are justified precisely by being made godly.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 9:11 am
TF (re: #188)
I pointed out that the aspects of Scotus which Pope Benedict commends are not the errors for which Scotus’s work was later condemned. You replied:
No, in fact, they were not. In no place in this general audience does Pope Benedict commend pantheism, but instead commends only what is true in Scotus’s account of theosis in union with the Truth. Even from the first centuries of the Church Catholics have understood that there are truths present in works containing errors.
That’s fully compatible with what I said.
Only in the mind that is not Catholic. The mind that is Catholic knows that the condemnation of a work does not mean that everything in it is false, and that the praise of a work does not mean that everything in it is true.
No it doesn’t. From the outside, perhaps, it might appear that way, but from the inside there is in actuality no contradiction, nor have you shown there to be one. To understand, you must first believe. Without belief, you will not understand. Credo ut intelligam.
I hope the conversation can return to the topic of Lane’s response to Jason.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2012 at 9:33 am
Bryan:
Ha ha, Bryan, you missed it, I had already posted a link to your Tradition and the Lexicon article in #185 before you posted it in 199. I’ve already said all the important things that need to be said about that article, too.
Lane’s response, which you so sorely seem to want to pursue, presupposes that words in the Bible have contextual and grammatical meaning, which mean nothing to you. How can you have a discussion about “Lane’s response” in that context?
Maybe you guys are right about the need to iron out “interpretive paradigms” first. Although your “IP”, which relies not only on what human beings think of as “tradition”, but something quite malleable, which you call “Tradition”, in which real exegesis may or may not be required, depending upon what needs to be said in order to keep the Roman Catholic church from looking bad, as I have noted here.
Congratulations on your “exegesis” prize, although, now that is wasted, in the saddest sense of the word, wouldn’t you think?
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 9:46 am
Bryan:
You raise a number of straw men in your response at #200. My point that Benedict XVI praises what Honorius III condemned is fully consistent with your claim that Benedict XVI only praises what is true in Scotus’ account. It just requires that Honorius III erred. The same goes for part (b) – B16 can be fully right in praising Scotus’ “entire thought” if (and only if) Honorius III was wrong about part of that entire thought.
Likewise, you attack premises that are not in my argument when you claim that “The mind that is Catholic knows that the condemnation of a work does not mean that everything in it is false, and that the praise of a work does not mean that everything in it is true.” Instead, I argued that praising a condemned work calls the person’s orthodoxy into question, which in no way depends on either of those premises.
As for your ad hominem argument that one has to be inside your church in order to see absence of contradiction, that argument is a sword with two edges. Perhaps it is your zeal for your false religion that blinds you to the fact that one pope praising a work for its “daring affirmations” that sound like pantheism and another condemning it for its pantheistic sounding statements is contradictory guidance. But perhaps the question is this: does the law of non-contradiction work differently in the papalist mind than in the normal mind? If not, then your claim is at best a red herring.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 10:04 am
Re: #198, “If you think what I said about the meaning of the Titus passage is falsified by exegesis, feel free to show how.”
Of course, the question wasn’t whether exegesis falsifies the alleged meaning but whether exegesis establishes the alleged meaning. We’ve repeatedly pointed out that this is the Achilles’ heel of Bryan Cross’ novel interpretation. It’s not derived from the text – it’s imposed on the text. Whether or not the meaning imposed on the text is “falsified by exegesis” isn’t the right touchstone.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 10:05 am
Bryan,
I too am glad to hear you want to discuss Lane’s post. There’s a place for Geneva and Rome to discuss what is the proper role and authority of ‘Tradition’ in Christ’s church. Once we learn that we can agree to disagree, we can talk about the blog posts and whether blogging theology, at all, is worth while. I’m willing to concede, as a newb, that I don’t know the years of history leading up to all these blog posts and comments. So I can’t appeal to the ‘tradition’ of blogs and theological blog thought. So perhaps things written out here in blogoapheric space are a reaction to things, with deep history. Just know, for me, the new guy, this all seems a bit abusrd.
Peace,
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 21, 2012 at 11:28 am
Bryan, that is precisely what you said. Logical priority shows the relationship of grounds. You said, Justification follows logically (but not temporally) the infusion of agape.
The ground therefore of our justification is agape.
God is therefore justifying the godly.
Bob S said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:15 pm
This kind of arrogant and pompous boasting in 198 below after the repeated refusal to do exactly that when it came to 2 Tim. 3:15-17 in the Arguments For the Papacy thread, much more prove, rather than just assert, that sola scriptura was generated by a protestant hermeneutic instead of faithfulness to what the text actually said.
I was awarded the Exegesis Prize by the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary, as the top exegete of my graduating class. So, I know how to exegete. Your reasoning mistake here is assuming that when I do not exegete, that therefore I do not know how to exegete. In actuality, the meaning of a text is often not an exegetical question, because exegesis per se underdetermines the hermeneutical conclusion. If you think what I said about the meaning of the Titus passage is falsified by exegesis, feel free to show how.
Then in 200 somebody wonders why the conversation doesn’t return to the topic of Lane’s response to Jason.
No commento, Dr. Dimento. Far be it from me to think a dexterous and cunning Roman controversialist owes an answer to anybody. Blind /implicit faith is what it is, after all.
Called to Chutzpah indeed.
johnbugay said,
August 21, 2012 at 12:19 pm
“exegesis per se underdetermines the hermeneutical conclusion.”
Telling.
michael said,
August 21, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Bob S @ 206 here is just my own arrogant and pompous boasting. I am ambidextrous when I type! :) And I have been known to type over a 100 words a minute, to boot!!
Can I play in this game then?
michael said,
August 21, 2012 at 1:47 pm
Brian Cross:
“Only in the mind that is not Catholic. The mind that is Catholic knows that the condemnation of a work does not mean that everything in it is false, and that the praise of a work does not mean that everything in it is true.”
Brian, for me, that seems to me to be about the truest statement you have ever made making that distinction between the mind that is Catholic in juxtaposing those who have been given the Mind of Christ, wretched those we may be!
On the contrary to the point about praising the work, the Apostle Paul made a different point about it by writing something different to the Ephesians.
His point, if it is not clear is “all” the works of the True Believer are true works nothing false in or about them and these works are works of Righteousness done by Faith through Faith in Faith. And this Faith is the Faith of another, Christ Jesus’!
Here’s what Paul wrote:
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
Now, of course, it is understood there are two kinds of works being distinguished and done these days in the Name of the Lord. Good works that we should walk in are the Works of the Lord done by Him through His Body as of course one realizes who has been born again to let Him do them as the same Apostle writes about here:
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
…
Col 1:27 To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.
Col 1:28 Him we proclaim, warning everyone and teaching everyone with all wisdom, that we may present everyone mature in Christ.
Col 1:29 For this I toil, struggling with all his energy that he powerfully works within me.
With Scriptures like those, nowhere am I able to claim anything as my own to boast in, like your boast (the Exegesis Prize by the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary,) about being awarded the exegete award! How does that qualify you to be able to exegete what the Holy Spirit has had written for our learning and admonition upon whom the ends of the world have come?
It is telling to me, too, that you bring us back to your best efforts and achievements all the while the True Church is bowing before Our King and Rule, God, Shepherd and Lord exhorting you!
Isn’t that interesting?
Can you cite anyone of us in here who boast as you have in here about yourself as a way to justify your truth?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 21, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Andrew,
Andrew, just stomping your feet is not an argument. I have adduced several passages and have argued that they connect our Spirit-wrought works to our final salvation in a causative way, and you have not even attempted an answer (beyond asking me why I think sowing and reaping are causally related, which is the most awesome question ever). So I will say to you what I said to Lane: you can’t just say “I disagree” when someone makes an argument, you need to show why the argument is wrong.
I brought up Rom. 8:17 in response to Jack, who complained that the Catholic gospel takes away what it gives by sounding gracious initially, but then adding some requirement into the mix. My point was that the NT does that all the time, Rom. 8:17 being one example.
Nope. Never said that. See my paragraph above.
As I said to Lane, I know what the Reformed position is. So when I adduce passages like the parable of the talents, the sheep and goats judgment, the reap/sow verse in Gal. 6, and all the others I have cited, is it your plan to just restate the Reformed position? Because that isn’t an argument.
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 2:26 pm
Jeff, (re: 205)
You’re conflating justification as an action, and justification as a state. Justification as a state follows logically (but not temporally) the infusion of agape. But when you conclude “God is therefore justifying the godly” you equivocate by using justification as an action. And that’s why your conclusion doesn’t follow. God doesn’t justify the godly. He justifies the ungodly, by infusing agape into them. The result of this infusion is justification as a state.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
michael said,
August 21, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Jason:
“As I said to Lane, I know what the Reformed position is.”
Do you?
I think that statement has for me at least uncovered some truth about you in it like the demons complaining that they “knew who Jesus is” and then … .
Luk 4:41 And demons also came out of many, crying, “You are the Son of God!” But he rebuked them and would not allow them to speak, because they knew that he was the Christ.
What seems to me, sitting from a far looking in at your life unfolding in blogs sphere on the blogs you make comment in about your conversion to Catholicism from the Reformed Faith, is you are a wolf in sheep cloth and as things began to become clearer to others who noticed that reality about you your answer was to do the right thing and jump in and swim the Tiber!
With your level of intelligence and acumen you will or should do well there?
Either that or you are just one deceived dude troubled deeply about why things in your own life don’t add up to Reformed Faith and orthodoxy and you were not able to find some brothers to help you through the trouble?
If that is the case then the Tiber in time will become just another trouble for you and your days ahead as in your Reformed days became trouble for you in those days behind you??
For me, it saddens me and in some sense it makes me tremble even more before the Lord knowing what I know.
Here’s my hope if in fact you are just one deceived dude and not that wolf in sheep cloth.
It is that you would find the same “peace” Paul wrote about to Timothy and that you come to personally experience the same result? The Apostle could come down to a human levelj in sharing his personal sufferings and conflicts without and within and be able to personalize it as we see here:
2Ti 4:14 Alexander the coppersmith did me great harm; the Lord will repay him according to his deeds.
2Ti 4:15 Beware of him yourself, for he strongly opposed our message.
2Ti 4:16 At my first defense no one came to stand by me, but all deserted me. May it not be charged against them!
2Ti 4:17 But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me, so that through me the message might be fully proclaimed and all the Gentiles might hear it. So I was rescued from the lion’s mouth.
2Ti 4:18 The Lord will rescue me from every evil deed and bring me safely into his heavenly kingdom. To him be the glory forever and ever. Amen.
I will just say it boldly that the Lord will not stand by or strengthen someone who is supporting or participating in false religions of the world.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 21, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Bryan (#211): God doesn’t justify the godly. He justifies the ungodly, by infusing agape into them. The result of this infusion is justification as a state.
OK, so you’re taking the action of infusing and the declaration of righteous as an atomistic event. And that makes sense.
But having done so, you cannot then say that infusion is logically prior to justification. The two are one and the same.
And that was my point: You can say that we are justified because we are first made righteous; but then you would also have to say that God justifies the godly.
OR, you can say that ‘making righteous’ is synonym for ‘infusing agape.’
In which case there is no order between them.
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Bryan Cross wrote: “He justifies the ungodly, by infusing agape into them. The result of this infusion is justification as a state.”
That’s roughly what Trent taught (On Justification, chapters 7-8).
The question is, does Scripture teach this? And the answer is, “no.”
“His faith is counted for righteousness” is what Romans 4:5 says, not “he receives love in his heart which actually makes him righteous.”
You can follow the apostolic doctrines or you can follow the Tridentine heresy, but the two are not one.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:22 pm
I thought it said that his faith was the instrument by which he received the alien righteousness of another?
(Wink)
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm
Jeff (re: #213)
Again, you’re conflating the act and the state. The act of justification is the infusion of agape, but infusion is logically prior to the state of being justified.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:31 pm
TF (re: #214)
Unless the faith that God counts for righteousness is living faith, i.e. fides caritate formata (i.e. the supernatural virtue of faith informed by the supernatural virtue of agape).
So the claim that this isn’t the apostolic doctrine presupposes that the faith referred to in Rom 4:5 is not fides caritate formata. But the truth of that presupposition has not been established. So it is question begging to presume that the Tridentine doctrine is heretical.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:32 pm
JJS:
The question of how faith is counted righteousness (which is exegeted from Scripture) is distinct from the simpler question of whether faith is counted righteousness, which is answered in the verse that declares that God justifies the impious.
And a mocking wink may satisfy you in your responses to us Christians, but it will not serve you well on the day of judgment. Treat this serious topic seriously.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:40 pm
I prefer “playful,” but whatever.
And I notice that you don’t seem to mind when others display less than serious behavior here. But then, they’re Christians and I’m not, so I guess it’s OK, right?
(Two thumbs up, plus a wink)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Listen to Turretin the Puritan.
Yes, my golf references are forever enshrined. But my only point was to try to communicate how utterly appalled I am to see ministers of Christ doing what is being done, here, on the internet.
Presbyteries need to be alerted.
Consider me ignorant to all ya’lls motives, no winkie winkie,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:43 pm
You’re not a Christian, Jason?
Says who?
Let’s talk offline, bro. You and I both are kind of the goofballs around here, perhaps. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Jason, I seriously don’t get your “wink.” And I have a high regard for you, as a seminary trained individual. So yes, your comments do carry some weight. So please be more careful. I’m actually really still very confused and wish I never stumbled upon the place called “Green Baggins.”
Nothing but grief this place brings,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm
*you, not me. I’m not seminary trained. I just pretend to golf.
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
“Unless the faith that God counts for righteousness is living faith, i.e. fides caritate formata (i.e. the supernatural virtue of faith informed by the supernatural virtue of agape).”
This is not a complete sentence. It seems to be an attempt to argue that if the faith that God counts for righteousness is accompanied by love, then the following is true: “He justifies the ungodly, by infusing agape into them. The result of this infusion is justification as a state.” But that is a non sequitur
“So the claim that this isn’t the apostolic doctrine presupposes that the faith referred to in Rom 4:5 is not fides caritate formata.”
a) No. You’ve misstated what the claim is. The claim is that your (and your church’s, where the two differ) doctrines are not what the apostles taught. Teaching 10 other things that the apostles taught does not make this teaching what the apostles taught.
b) More especially, the question is not whether the faith is a faith formed by love (whether that is a Biblical category just invites a further tangent), but whether the apostolic doctrine is that God counts righteousness for faith or God infuses righteousness. The former is the apostolic doctrine, the latter is the error (in summary form) of Trent.
“But the truth of that presupposition has not been established. So it is question begging to presume that the Tridentine doctrine is heretical.”
You use the term “question begging” quite a lot. It’s almost as though you don’t know what it means (though surely you must).
What makes it worse is that you don’t just allege that your opponents’ arguments have premises (which you label ‘presuppositions’) that are unaccepted by you (and then label that “question-begging”), but you attribute to them premises that you ought to know, full well, that they reject.
Perhaps you should just deal with the argument you’re dealt, instead of attributing false premises, aka using the straw man tactics.
-TurretinFan
jsm52 said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Romans 4:5 –
Faith:
counted for, reckoned as, imputed as righteousness…
not faith makes righteous, nor faith infuses righteousness…
But we know this already, don’t we? Move along, nothing to see here…
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Jack (re: #225),
But here is it God doing the reckoning. And He is Truth, and therefore only reckons things as they are; He never lies. God reckons those with fides caritate formata righteous, because by the possession of such faith (as a gift of God) they internally are righteous.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 3:58 pm
JJS: If my standards of seriousness are double, it is because I am much more concerned for the salvation of your soul than for the salvation of theirs. – TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:21 pm
“But here is it God doing the reckoning. And He is Truth, and therefore only reckons things as they are; He never lies. God reckons those with fides caritate formata righteous, because by the possession of such faith (as a gift of God) they internally are righteous.”
a) God reckoning things as they are not is not a “lie.” So, the argument does not stick.
b) Indeed, Paul declares:
Romans 4:17
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Was Abraham already a father? Yet he was reckoned so by God before it came to be. Will Bryan dare call that a lie?
Wherefore, again, the argument is false.
c) The idea that the people really are righteous (i.e. interpreting the second half of the verse that way) makes no contextual sense. Remember that the context is God justifying the ungodly, not God justifying the godly.
d) More to the point, the text says that their faith is counted as righteousness. That does not fit with the proposal that “by the possession of such faith (as a gift of God) they internally are righteous,” either on its own two feet, or on the original proposal that justification is God infusing love.
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:27 pm
“You’re not a Christian, Jason? Says who?”
The OPC and PCA standards forbid marriage between RCs and Christians on the ground of unequal yoking. See WCF 24:3 (“Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry with infidels, papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.”)
They forbid the entering into of such marriages. They do not, of course, permit the dissolution of such marriages. After all, it may be that the believing wife will save her husband.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Well, TF, I will wait for Jason to speak on his own behalf.
Our standards may have something to say. But we should be gentle with Mr. Stellman. I’m very sorry to see him keep posting here. If there’s one thing him and I share, it’s that we’ve been scolded along the lines of:
“no more posts on the internet.”
or maybe that’s only me now. Maybe he’s got some mandate…
fade to black,
andrew
jsm52 said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Bryan – 226,
Notwithstanding your assertions as to the necessity of infused righteousness as the ground of God’s declaration (nowhere asserted in Scripture):
If “God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham”, then I think He is able to reckon righteousness to a wicked sinner through that sinner’s faith in Christ Jesus’ death and resurrection.
For Him who knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him. – 2 Cor. 5:21
Ah, the sweet exchange…
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:38 pm
the moment we start dictating who is and is not saved based on our standards, how are we not the church that once told it’s members it needed to buy an indulgence….i see your point. just, let’s move past mr. stellman. don’t make me quote machen “what is faith” on this matter, because i’ll pull it out. it’s between mr. stellman and God. as is true for us all. mr. stellman need answer to no man. i just advise him here to take a week off, if possible. i’ll be playing golf. but you didn’t need me to say any of this.
jsm52 said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Andrew – 232,
TFan is well able to respond. Calling or not calling someone a Christian is not to make a determination on who is saved through God’s secret election. This only He knows. Rather it is to apply the name Christian to one who confesses the Christian faith as taught by the Church. That’s sort of the topic of discussion. I’m not making a judgment regarding anyone here, but we have Church confessions for a reason. Just clarifying.
TurretinFan said,
August 21, 2012 at 4:52 pm
AB: You asked the question, “says who.” The answer is, “the churches who hold to the Westminster Standards.” I participate in these discussions because I agree, and because I care about the souls of those who are deceived by Rome and her grandiose claims.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 21, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Then, TF, your reasons are good. In my humble opinion.
Thanks be to God that it is He who does the work of saving souls. May we all be thankful to be a part of His work and plan. Thanks for the clarification, folks. Peace out.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 21, 2012 at 5:27 pm
Aside: JJS (#219): And I notice that you don’t seem to mind when others display less than serious behavior here.
I hear you, but I don’t anyone should draw assumptions about what we each think about what the others say. It can be easy to assume that there are two “teams” and everyone is in agreement with everyone else on “the team.”
But in fact, we are confronted with a deluge of comments, and there’s only so much one can do.
isaiah. said,
August 21, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Michael (212):
Just how certain are you about the following statement?
And where is your proof? Have you talked to many Catholics about their perspective on the matter (i.e., whether they sense the Lord’s presence as they take up their cross daily, etc.)?
From my observation of this heated (and not a little convoluted) discussion, I’d say that a Christian such as Bryan Cross (who happens to be Catholic) must have the Lord standing quite close to him, given that the lot of you are bent on attacking him in a most un-Christian fashion; and still he continues to persevere and fight the good faith in the face of it.
Three cheers for Bryan!
ih.
isaiah. said,
August 21, 2012 at 6:57 pm
(My apologies: that should be “fight the good fight” … or perhaps, “fight on behalf of the good faith”: your choice.)
Bryan Cross said,
August 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm
TF (re: #228)
Of course that’s not a lie. God said it, and God cannot lie (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2). But it would have been a false statement if someone said to Abraham at that time, “You are the father of many presently existing nations.” In telling Abraham that he had been made the father of many nations, God was telling him (as the context in Gen 17 goes on to explain) that God had chosen him to be the father of many nations, and that this coming into existence and multiplication of his offspring into many nations would surely take place, according to the plan of God. He wasn’t telling him that He was the father of presently existing nations. So, what God said to Abraham was not contrary to reality, but corresponded to reality.
In Rom 4 – 5, St. Paul is saying that when Abraham believed God, God reckoned this as righteousness at that very moment (e.g. Rom 4:3). And God does the same to all who believe (Rom 4:11). These persons presently receive “the free gift of righteousness.” (Rom 5:17) That would be a falsehood if these persons are not in fact presently righteous upon receiving this gift. Otherwise these passages in Romans would be referring only to future righteousness, requiring Rom 4:3 to be revised as “Abraham believed God and it was a sign that he would receive righteousness the moment after his death.” This would require revising Rom 5:17 into “much more will those who believe receive at their death the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness.” And so on. Since these passages are talking about God reckoning righteousness to persons presently, these persons must therefore be presently righteous, lest God be made a liar.
It would be a mistake to construe Rom 4:17 in such a way that Heb 6:18 and Titus 1:2 become tautologies. In other words, construing Rom 4:17 as meaning that God could say any proposition at all, and this proposition would be true merely by the fact that God said it even if it does not correspond to reality, nullifies the truth-value of Heb 6:18 and Titus 1:2. In order for Heb 6:18 and Titus 1:2 to be not tautological, whatever God says must correspond to reality.
The doctrine that in justification persons are made righteous (or are already righteous and counted as such) makes perfect contextual sense. One of St. Paul’s main points in Rom 2 is that true righteousness is at the level of the heart, where there is friendship with God, whether or not the person is circumcised. Abraham exemplifies this in Romans 4.
It fits perfectly. That faith is counted as righteousness because that faith (i.e. living faith) includes agape, which is righteousness.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
isaiah said,
August 21, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Bryan:
Excellent exposition. Keep it coming, my good man.
TF (227):
You say:
Concerned how and for what reason? Has Jason abandoned the faith? Is he planning on abandoning it? I only ask because I’m curious about the transition he is in. So, a few more questions:
Did Jason believe before? If so, in what? What now has he ceased believing in? How does this affect the state of his salvation? Don’t you, after all, believe in “once saved, always saved”? Or, perhaps you would say (in your humble estimation) that if he is now turned apostate, that must suggest he was never “saved” to begin with.
And yet, he once believed according to the Reformed/Presbyterian faith (I trust this can be undeniably said.) Was that not enough to “save” him? Or must one continue believing the correct way in order to keep one’s salvation? The faith that justifies is never alone, right? Was his faith “not alone” (accompanied by the proving, but not causative, good works) before, but has since become “alone” because his “faith” is now tainted by vile “Romanism”?
On a much more simplistic level: What must one actually do to be saved?
ih.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 21, 2012 at 10:59 pm
As I said to Lane, I know what the Reformed position is. So when I adduce passages like the parable of the talents, the sheep and goats judgment, the reap/sow verse in Gal. 6, and all the others I have cited, is it your plan to just restate the Reformed position? Because that isn’t an argument.
Jason,
I’m not just restating the Reformed position, I’m showing how forcefully the texts you cite affirm the Reformed position. That’s why I raised the issue of the Puritans. They used verses like Gal. 6:8 (where we began our conversation) to prove something which is at the heart of Reformed/Puritan theology – only those who walk according to the Spirit will reap everlasting life. But the context of the verse has nothing to do with the mechanics of justification. Yes it is true that only those who follow the Spirit will reap everlasting life. But it’s a wholly unjustified conclusion that the good works that flow out of this following the Spirit are causative of our justification. So do you get it? I’m not just reiterating Reformed systematics, but showing how the text here does not in any way call into question Reformed systematics.
I’m continuing to show that the verses you cite are not causative, but you continue to refer to them at me as if it is obvious there is a causative element here. Take you little set of arrow quotes in #17 as a summary of the Galatians texts. You feel that your final statement is a logical necessity based on the previous statements. But how you get the text to be inescapably causative here is entirely lost on all of us.
Do you want to talk through the specifics of some of the other texts you cite?
michael said,
August 22, 2012 at 12:03 am
Bryan at #239 it occurs to me to ask you what the Holy Spirit was revealing about some others who had been given the same Faith as Abraham?
Might I suggest you read Hebrews 11 and the first seven verses.
michael said,
August 22, 2012 at 12:04 am
Isaiah at #237, very certain. The proof you ask, well apparently my private interpretation of what Bryan comments in here is much different than yours.
As for asking Catholics, well, half if not more of my own Tribe is deluded and deceived by the RCC. What is experienced on that reservation is disgusting to me having been there and attended Catholic Mass a few times.
I can only witness and say when I was eight years old I came home after morning catechism at St. Joseph’s fully disgusted with what I was experiencing and asked my dad if it would be possible for me to stop attending. Unbeknowns to me my sister on that same Saturday asked the same thing. She’s a year older and attending a different class with a different teacher.
Faced with an eight and nine year old on the same day asking for the same relief, I guess, was sufficient for my dad to agree with us.
All I know is what I know by the Spirit of Grace and Truth. And I can tell you Bryan doesn’t have a grasp on the Spirit of Grace and Truth. He is full of head knowledge but the Spirit of God doesn’t speak through him like he wants everybody to believe.
I suppose you are a dyed in the wool Roman Catholic, Isaiah?
Bob S said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:25 am
Isaiah,
Not only is it easily verifiable on the internet that Trent contradicts the Second Council of Orange and thereby falls into the category of semi pelagianism*, your question betrays your romanist presuppositions.
You don’t have to do anything. You have to believe in Jesus. That he died on the cross for sinners and that then God the Father will forgive sinners who ask him to for Christ’s sake and for Christ’s work upon the cross.
Romans 10:9,13 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. . . . For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
Jason wants to return to the vomit the church was delivered from at the time of the Reformation: A salvation by works, whether the work of man’s free will in choosing Christ without, before or in cooperation with grace – though the will is equally dead in its sins and trespasses – or by agape influenced works of love.
Much more would be the idea that the Book of James is as at loggerheads with Romans and Jame’s justification before man is the controlling paradigm instead of the Book of Roman’s emphasis on justification before God. IOW man, sinner that he is, wants to be in charge even when it comes to grace and somehow interject his own righteous works in some way some how in order to earn his salvation. And take glory away from the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?
*At least semi-pelagian in the sense that with infusion, the justification of sinners is dependent on their works, albeit agape love filled etc. instead of being justified by the righteousness of Christ and his work imputed to them.
isaiah said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:54 am
Michael (243):
I would describe myself as neither “dyed in the wool” nor “full of head knowledge”.
If being full of head knowledge is somehow a negative to you, would you accept my testimony that I darkened the doors of the Catholic Church and now count myself among her faithful by God’s grace and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and not by filling my head with persuasive arguments for why the Catholic Church is True (or why Protestantism is not)?
Your most recent accusations of Bryan Cross are very serious ones. You are judging his “grasp on the Spirit of Grace and Truth” by what you “know by the Spirit of Grace and Truth” (subjectively and personally, though experience does count for something). Also, I think it is uncharitable of you to say that Bryan “wants everybody to believe” that the Spirit of God “speaks through him”, as if he perfectly channels the voice of God, and the rest of do not, however slightly. To my mind, he is merely trying to explain his viewpoint and answer the many objections (and off-topic rants) that many in this blog post have leveled against him and against the Church he loves. Of course, I am overstepping my own guidelines by saying as much.
As to your personal, apparently negative, experience of catechism as an eight year-old: I am sorry to hear about it. As a father, I can understand the struggles with spiritual discipline and weighty theological matters that I see children have, not to mention their general distaste for things related to adults and education. But I also see their hunger for something beyond themselves: a spirituality that reaches past the written word, and stretches further back in history than the last 10 or 20 years. Children, to put it bluntly, need guidance from those who know better than themselves.
As it happens, I’ve seen remarkable spiritual growth in my 7 and 11 year-old since our turn to the Catholic Church (though I rather think it is intimately intertwined with an increase of devotion to Jesus experienced by myself and my wife).
Let it be known that I have nothing but love and hope for my Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ (yes, I really consider them this way): how could I not? We both, in theory, want to love the Lord more: for neither of us love’s Him perfectly yet. So let us press on together.
In Christ,
ih.
isaiah said,
August 22, 2012 at 2:33 am
Bob S:
… and your response betrays your Protestant presuppositions. Perhaps it puts too fine a point on it to ask: Is not believing in and of itself an action?
As to wanting to take glory away from God by meriting my own salvation (or some such nonsense), I personally have no such delusions. In all that I have read of Christian belief (from a Catholic perspective) – from the New Testament to the Apostolic Fathers to the 2nd Council of Orange to Trent to the most recent edition of the official Catechism: God’s grace precedes our salvation, and goes after it (cf. St. Augustine, De natura et gratia, 31: “Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life …”). Thus, any co-operation we have with the Spirit of God (for it truly is a co-operation, just as the living God Himself co-operated with fallen humanity to provide for us, through the perfect sacrifice of Himself, salvation from our wickedness), is to God’s glory alone. When Christ crowns our merit, He is crowning his own gifts (again, the wisdom of Augustine: “You are glorified in the assembly of your Holy Ones, for in crowning their merits you are crowning your own gifts”; see CCC 2006).
But you have not satisfactorily answered the question (not that it was directed at you, but still) about whether and how Jason has lost his salvation, if indeed you believe that. Would it be correct to say that a belief according to your interpretation of Catholic doctrine disallows somebody from being ultimately saved on the day of judgment?
Whatever your answer may be, I would strongly disagree that a true understanding of the Catholic faith is a “salvation by works”. Instead, salvation is unequivocally by God’s grace, merited by Christ’s death on the cross, in which we take part daily. Perhaps you can affirm this statement, perhaps not. But as with any verse in the Holy Scriptures, I can certainly affirm the one you have given above: I can assure you that I have confessed Jesus Christ with my mouth (many times, in fact, though I wish I could be more bold about that action out in the world amongst non-believers), and I do believe in my heart that God raised Him from the dead, and call upon His name (at least a couple times a day, in fact, provided I’m not too distracted by the daily cares of the world).
ih.
P.S. I have not read the website you linked about the supposed contradiction between Orange II and Trent, but will try to give it a look-see.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2012 at 2:45 am
I was on travel, so had to leave the conversation for the day. Picking up with Bryan’s response to me;
The assumption that the meaning of a term is dictated by a lexicon, rather than by the Tradition, is part of the Protestant paradigm, as explained here. So here you are using a presupposition of the Protestant paradigm, to argue that the verses of Romans 4-5 do not fit into the Catholic paradigm. What I’m asking is for you to support, in a non-question-begging way, your claim (in #179) that the Catholic paradigm “is contradicted by St. Paul in this very text.”
As usual you want to make everything about paradigms, presuppositions, and question-begging, but honest, contextual, grammatical-historical exegesis of a text is not unique to the Protestant position, indeed Romanists and those who don’t profess Christ engage in it. I take this response as tacit admission of defeat, that the Romanist interpretation of Paul cannot be defended without appeal to authority and projecting concepts foreign to Paul by people living centuries later back into his writings.
I was awarded the Exegesis Prize by the faculty of Covenant Theological Seminary, as the top exegete of my graduating class. So, I know how to exegete. Your reasoning mistake here is assuming that when I do not exegete, that therefore I do not know how to exegete.
Well, I’m glad you are not claiming that your response in #193 even remotely resembled exegesis, but then I wonder why you bothered to respond, given that the direct question given was for you to provide an exegetical answer. We didn’t just want to hear your theological musings and opinion on what Titus 2 means.
In actuality, the meaning of a text is often not an exegetical question, because exegesis per se underdetermines the hermeneutical conclusion.
That can sometimes be the case, depending on what the question is. But again, your are just stating a generality without actually bothering to show that this is the case in Romans 4 or Titus 2 concerning the matters at hand.
If you think what I said about the meaning of the Titus passage is falsified by exegesis, feel free to show how.
This is your lazy way of trying to avoid exegesis. The question was put to you to defend your assertions about what the text says, it is not up to us to “falsify” it. Especially when you stack the deck and call it question-begging when we do falsify it through grammatical-historical exegesis since we aren’t using “Tradition” to project concepts back into Paul.
This is cult-like mentality. We can only understand Paul if we use the Tradition decoder ring. All well and good, I suppose, but you are leaving us without any reason to actually change our minds about Roman Catholicism. You undercut your ability to persuade by making understanding contingent on adopting an insider mentality.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 2:51 am
Andrew,
No, you’re just repeatedly restating your own position. Here’s what you said:
“I’m sure you know that the Puritans pounded on these kinds of verses over and over again to impress on their listeners that we must suffer with Christ or we are not the children of God. But they were in no way bringing into question justification apart from works in the Reformed understanding of such things. And there is no reason why we need to posit any kind of contradiction.”
You claim to be “forcefully showing how the texts I cite affirm the Reformed position.” Well, you are certainly claiming as much, but you’re certainly not “showing” me anything, forcefully or even mildly. I mean, if there’s a forceful demonstration of anything in that quote, I sure can’t find it.
No, I don’t “get it” at all. I have tried multiple times to connect the dots between our justification by faith working through love, our Spirit-wrought works of love, and our final salvation, and you answer that you don’t see the connection. That’s fine, I can try harder (which I am happy to do). But please don’t tell yourself that you have offered anything resembling a refutation of my argument. You just keep denying it, but that’s not the same as demonstrating its falsity.
Wrong on both counts. You continue to claim that the causal element is missing (which is not the same as “showing me” it’s missing), and I continue to argue from the texts that it’s there (which is not the same as acting as if it’s obvious).
OK, let me try again (but in your next comment you need to actually interact with what I say rather than continue to disagree for no stated reason):
Paul, in Gal. 5, is explicitly talking about justification, since he asks, “Tell me, you who want to be justified by the law, do you not hear the law?” He then says, “Circumcision avails nothing.” For what? For justification, obviously. But what does avail for justification? “Circumcision avails nothing, but faith working through love.” OK, so FWTL avails for justification.
Why does FWTL avail for justification while the law of Moses, as expressed in circumcision, does not? Because, as Paul goes on to say, it is love that fulfills the law.
OK, but how does that come about? Paul answers by saying that “the fruit of the Spirit is love.” He calls this type of living “walking in the Spirit” and “sowing to the Spirit.”
Finally, he says, if we sow to the Spirit, we will reap eternal life (hence the causality: people who reap are not just people who happen to have unrelatedly sown. People who reap are people who reap because they have sown. Only the most crass Edwardsian would deny the causality here). And as I argued earlier, this is the exact same progression that we find in all the principal NT writers.
Yes, please. But by “talking through the specifics” I mean I want you to show me that the texts I adduced do not connect our Spirit-wrought works with our gaining our eternal inheritance. What I don’t really feel like doing is having you simply insist that the connection is not there while giving me no arguments why.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 22, 2012 at 7:36 am
Jason (#248): …show me that the texts I adduced do not connect our Spirit-wrought works with our gaining our eternal inheritance.
Of course, they do connect. If ‘connection’ were all that were needed, this would have been over long ago.
The question is, What kind of connection?
* Is it causal in the sense that our love-wrought works merit our eternal life?
* Or, is it causal in the sense that love-wrought works are rewarded on top of the eternal life that is had through faith?
Teasing those two apart requires something much more precise than ‘connection.’
Jeff Cagle said,
August 22, 2012 at 7:44 am
Bryan (#216):
JRC: But having done so, you cannot then say that infusion is logically prior to justification. The two are one and the same.
BC: Again, you’re conflating the act and the state. The act of justification is the infusion of agape, but infusion is logically prior to the state of being justified.
Yes, and the act of adoption is logically prior to the state of being adopted, and the act of glorifying is logically prior to the state of being glorified.
But states of being don’t show up in ordo salutis‘s. Only actions do.
And since you are using the ‘logically prior’ language of the ordo salutis, it seems best to read (and write) in that framework.
Now here’s the point: justification includes above all the forgiveness of sins. This is the burden of Romans 4 – 5.
The question that every Catholic has to consider is, Is my forgiveness of sins logically prior to or logically subsequent to the infusion of grace?
You make justification (the act) a synonym for infusion. But clearly, forgiveness is not a synonym for infusion.
So are we forgiven of our sins because grace has been infused, making us righteous? That would be odd, forgiving a righteous man.
Or are we infused with grace because our sins are forgiven by the merits of Christ?
And if so, then haven’t we arrived at the Protestant ordo salutis?
johnbugay said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:27 am
Jeff Cagle, not sure if you will have seen A.A. Hodge’s look at the very thing you are looking at:
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:36 am
Wow, 251.
These forums DO work.
Consider me silent and repentant, GBers,
AB
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:49 am
Jeff (re: #250)
Here you’re attempting to restrict logical order to that which “shows up” in Protestant versions of an ordo salutis. But logical order is not limited to any such restriction.
Infusion of agape is necessary for forgiveness, because a man cannot be cleared of all debt while still adding to that debt.
Whether “odd” or not, there is nothing incoherent about it. There is nothing contradictory or incoherent about being presently righteous (i.e. presently having agape) and still owing a debt due to past offenses.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:55 am
John B. (re: #251)
Quoting Hodge, you wrote:
Consider the argument:
Premise 1: Aquinas himself affirms that the satisfaction and merit of Christ necessarily antecede and constitute the foundation of any merit subsequently acquired by the believer.
Premise 2: Hence that which is ultimately founded upon grace is all of grace, and si gratia consideratur secundum rationem gratuiti doni, omne meritum repugnat gratia (Qu. 113, Art.5)
Conclusion: hence absolutely forgiveness of sins precedes and conditions infusion of grace.
Hodge’s premises are true, but his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. So his conclusion is a non sequitur. He conflates what belongs to the application of redemption with what belongs to the accomplishment of redemption. And that’s why he thinks (incorrectly) that there is some inconsistency in the Catholic doctrine in which the infusion of grace logically (but not temporally) precedes the remission of sins.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:06 am
Bryan,
Infusion of agape is necessary for forgiveness, because a man cannot be cleared of all debt while still adding to that debt…
There is nothing contradictory or incoherent about being presently righteous (i.e. presently having agape) and still owing a debt due to past offenses.
Rom. 4:
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness.
6 Even as David also pronounceth blessing upon the man, unto whom God reckoneth righteousness apart from works,
7 saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, And whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom, the Lord will not reckon sin.
My thoughts:
The blessing of justification is upon the man to whom God has reckoned righteousness for Christ’s sake. That blessing comes upon the one whose iniquities are forgiven, whose sins are covered, and to whom the Lord does not impute or reckon sin.
Paul is saying that the blessing of justification is in the forgiveness of sins, and that is, in a word: the reckoning of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner and the “not-reckoning” of sinner’s sin to the sinner. In other words, Paul equates forgiveness of sins with justification.
“He paid a debt He did not owe. I owed a debt I could not pay. I needed Someone to wash my sins away. And now I sing a brand new song, amazing grace. Christ Jesus paid a debt that I could never pay.”
That is justification in a nutshell. It is that Justification that causes our eyes to look, not within for agape or grace or the Spirit, but to look to Jesus and His sacrificial death on the cross for forgiveness of sins and his resurrection that triumphantly established justification for all that believe in Him. I am cleansed and reckoned righteous for His sake. And it is to this good news that the Holy Spirit within bears witness. Faith looks to Christ crucified, not to agape or grace or the Spirit.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:25 pm
Jeff,
We’ve gone over this before multiple times, haven’t we? But I don’t think you ever addressed my remarks about the servant in the parable of the talents.
That servant was not simply given rewards for his faithfulness over and above the eternal life he was given irrespective of his faithfulness (and if you think he was, you need to show it, which I don’t think you’ve attempted to do yet).
The master in the parable says, “Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful in a few things, now enter into the joy of your lord.” And as I have pointed out a few times now, the servant who buried his master’s talent was cast into hell, which indicates that the issue here is not varying rewards for the already-saved, but final salvation itself.
Much of the same could be said of the sheep and goats judgment, where Jesus says, “Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom… FOR I was hungry and you fed me,” etc. If Jesus didn’t intent anyone to read a causal connection into his words, he sure chose them poorly (especially if affirming that causal connection overturns the very gospel Jesus was trying to preach).
If you go back to that initial sketch I provided, I believe that the same is the case with all the passages listed: there is a causal connection between Spirit-wrought works and the gaining of eternal life. Of course, this does not mean I would agree with your Option #1 above in an unqualified way, for reasons I am sure you can guess.
michael said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Isaiah:
“…We both, in theory, want to love the Lord more: for neither of us love’s Him perfectly yet.”
Well Isaiah, that is where we separate.
You see, I am saved by Christ and His equitable deed, His perfect work, not mine. I hold to this promise. It is what steadies my steps.
My steps don’t count for anything even the blameless perfect ones. It is Christ and Him crucified. He alone saves His people from their sins.
When you speak about “love” you are speaking as though you are doing it or even more foolishly, you can do it (being enabled to love as Christ loves us)!
No, no you can’t do it and you are deceiving yourself and others by believing you can love as God so loved the world.
That is the separation between us.
Here is what I hold too waking up daily struggling with thoughts back and forth between my flesh and His Spirit within me. By His Grace and Mercy He is bringing every thought of mine captive for me and loving others including me through me:
Joh 17:25 O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.
Joh 17:26 I made known to them your name, and I will continue to make it known, that the love with which you have loved me may be in them, and I in them.”
…
1Jn 4:7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God.
1Jn 4:8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
1Jn 4:9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him.
1Jn 4:10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
The questions you need to answer, Isaiah, is “who” is doing “it”; Who is the one that is Love “loving” through and why? You are not “Love”. God is.
You and the RCC have turned it around to make it a work you do loving another and I stand with the Truth of the Scriptures against that self righteousness because I can do nothing of my own worthy of God’s acceptance or man’s.
It is as John revealed in both places cited above and I emphasize:
“…that the love with which you have loved me may be in them and I in them.”
“…In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son…”
You in practice make void the Love of God and that is what God wants you to avoid. It is not until you understand your total depravity and attain the repentance that follows will you ever let Christ love you and love through you. Here’s how the Apostle Peter put it:
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
Isaiah, not until you come to this “truth”, this “true” confession followed by true repentance it will be impossible for you to “so love the world God’s way” because until then it is just you in your fallen nature and character loving as God loves. That’s a work. That’s not something that God accepts from anyone.
God is not interested in infusing His “love” in you making you perfect and clean and holy and loving. No, He has already stated your condition before Him and men. You are dead, dead, dead in trespasses and sins. He wants you buried with Christ so you can be raised to newness of Life, to the Life of Christ so that it is Christ in you doing it in that “love” God loved Him with!
Tell me, you believe all on your own you went about sinning. Why would God want to then rehabilitate you and infuse in you His gift of Righteousness so you can of your own accord, again, come back to life to do what you could not do in the first place?
God wants you dead and buried so that Christ can come alive in you. It is by Grace we are saved through Faith and that not of ourselves it is the gift of God lest any of us should boast. God doesn’t want us to do kind of like that little boasting rub Bryan did to rub in the face of someone above by pointing out his award as the best exegete of his class in theology school to justify himself before men. That’s what the RCC reduces you to, to the addah boy awards and exclamations as you did to Bryan above:
“Bryan:
Excellent exposition. Keep it coming, my good man.”
So what if he was awarded that trophy.
Just a personal digression as I conclude these comments. I was awarded the prize and a small plastic trophy during one catechism class because I could cite orally the Lord’s Prayer three times faster than anyone else in class during the Lord’s Prayer competition! Wow! I won!
Did the teacher or anyone of my classmates have a clue the depth and meaning of the Lord’s Prayer? Not a chance!! The depth is yet to be plumbed. The Holy Spirit continues to give me insights into it as I prayer the Lord’s Prayer!
I am, as I suppose a lot of others in here are too, still waiting for Bryan to actually exegete some Scriptures and thus prove that it is a work of the Spirit at work in him and not some one or something else.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:50 pm
JJS: We’ve gone over this before multiple times, haven’t we? But I don’t think you ever addressed my remarks about the servant in the parable of the talents.
I did (or tried to) in one of the comments above, or on another thread. I was wondering why I didn’t get a reply. :)
I wonder whether I should throw up an open thread on my website re: the parable of the talents?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 22, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Bryan (#253):
Infusion of agape is necessary for forgiveness, because a man cannot be cleared of all debt while still adding to that debt.
That would be odd, forgiving a righteous man.
Whether “odd” or not, there is nothing incoherent about it. There is nothing contradictory or incoherent about being presently righteous (i.e. presently having agape) and still owing a debt due to past offenses.
Then there’s more ‘splainin’ to do, Lucy. For you argued previously that in the agape paradigm, one is either all-or-nothing righteous.
If one still has guilt from past offenses, one is not righteous; Contrapositively, if one is righteous, there’s nothing to forgive.
Further, there’s no question of ‘adding to debt.’ Either one has agape and is righteous, or else some mortal sin has been committed and the righteousness is all gone. We can’t consider whether or not the individual in question has kept some list of rules…
That’s the agape paradigm as you explained it, and does not appear to be compatible with the order of infusion and forgiveness as you explained it.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 22, 2012 at 3:31 pm
JJS (#256): That servant was not simply given rewards for his faithfulness over and above the eternal life he was given irrespective of his faithfulness (and if you think he was, you need to show it…
So what I said way back somewhere is this (with a bit added):
Textually, the two servants who are rewarded receive rewards that are proportional to their actions (Luke 19.17, 19; Matt 24.21, 24.23).
Meanwhile the servant cast into hell is cast into hell because he did not trust the master (Matt 24.25, compare to Jhn 3.18).
Further, there is no indication in the text that the third servant ever had any kind of initial grace. He’s given a talent. What does that talent represent? I would suggest in the larger context of Matt 22 – 25 that the talents refer to Jesus’ words. Those who have and do not believe are judged; those who receive and produce fruit are rewarded according to their fruit. This would accord with the parable of the soils, and Jesus’ teachings in John 5 – 6.
So the text itself gives reason to think that there are two things going on. One is salvation itself; the other is rewards on top of that salvation. Jesus’ focus is not on carefully distinguishing between the two, but on emphasizing that both come together.
Confirming evidence that salvation and works can be distinguished comes in 1 Cor 3, in which we discover that some will indeed be saved with all their works burned up.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Jeff,
Yes, and I do not deny that this points to a truth we will experience as well, namely, that some will receive a greater inheritance than others will.
Concerning the servant who hid his master’s talent, we read of him that he was “wicked,” “slothful,” “and worthless.” Jesus then says that “to him who has more will be given, but to him who has not, even what he has will be taken away.”
The fact that this parable occurs in the context of the final judgment of the sheep and goats (whose admission into the kingdom is tied directly to their works of mercy) leads me to think that this parable is about entering, or failing to enter, the eternal kingdom. And the fact that in Matthew’s version the servant who invested most wisely was rewarded most abundantly doesn’t take away from anything I have said.
Without trying to over-interpret the parable, would you not agree that the basics of Catholic soteriology fit quite nicely with the basics of what is taught in it? The slothful servant is given something he did not deserve, but his failure to be faithful with what was given resulted in his losing something he previously had, then being cast into outer darkness. Further, the eternal inheritance that his two fellow-servants received was tied directly to the faithfulness exhibited in their lives with what they had graciously received.
Again, nothing I am saying necessitates separating the degrees of enjoyment of our eternal inheritance from that inheritance itself. But the text gives no indication that anything played a role in the two servants’ salvation besides their own faithfulness. Now, we would both want to insist that there’s more to the story than that (it is a parable, after all), but my point is simply that the basics of the parable fit perfectly with the basics of the Catholic gospel, particularly the part about our Spirit-wrought works playing a role not just in the icing-on-the-cake rewards we may get, but in whether we are finally saved or not.
I’m happy to move on from this if you like. There’s plenty of other biblical data we could discuss.
David Gadbois said,
August 22, 2012 at 5:26 pm
Jeff, I would say that the “talent” might very well represent not only Jesus’ words, but Word and Sacrament more generally. So it would then have reference to a covenant member who receives some measure of non-salvific grace through the church.
I think time would be better spent on some of the other passages Jason brought up (especially those in Galatians). For those parables that Jesus nor the narrator provide explicit interpretation, one can only find a shaky foundation for dogma. We need to take seriously Jesus’ own claim that He spoke in parables to frustrate the non-elect in His audience, and we need to take seriously the principle of the priority of interpreting clearer passages over unclear passages.
isaiah. said,
August 22, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Michael (257):
Wow, lots to take in here. Let’s start at the beginning.
Where exactly do we separate here? Surely you do not mean that you have no desire to love Jesus more. I will also eliminate the suggestion that you or I already love Jesus perfectly (at least, I know I do not). So, perhaps you mean that, while I imply that it is possible to love the Lord perfectly, you would deny that as a possibility? If this is “where we separate”, my question to you is, Will we not be loving God perfectly in heaven? For surely to be glorified and sanctified in heaven, where we will be partakers of the divine nature and co-heirs with Christ, is to be unhindered to truly love God as we ought.
Do I say that the source and power of that love is completely my own? I do not. But, in reference to the verses you quoted, God clearly wants us to love. And not just our neighbors, but the Lord Himself, with all our heart, soul, mind and strength. This is the Lord’s very (and first) commandment to us. But while it starts (and ends) with God’s love, how can our relationship be said to be a true one, if we are not loving God in return and by our own free choice (however imperfectly that may be)?
So, I must now ask: While there may be agreement between us on the nature of where this love comes from (i.e. from God, who is Love), would you disagree that we are actually able to love him in some way, on this earth, and that this love matters in some sense (even if not in a purely salvific manner)?
For, how can we be said to have true faith in Christ’s perfect sacrifice and the salvation of the human race merited thereof, if we do not also love Him daily? Does not even St. Paul say that the greatest of these is love without which we are nothing? Do not even the verses you quoted for me above speak to the utmost importance of love, which God has poured out into our hearts (Rom. 5:5), and which Christ Himself prayed would be in us?
I realize there is so much more to address, and I will, Lord willing, respond to the rest eventually.
Blessings,
ih.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 8:17 pm
isaiah, if i may…
first, i have been told i am (or maybe i am just practicing) “vacuous sophistry” on another string here on GB. no matter, but you can stop reading this comment now, if you want to. i just want you to be aware.
here’s where i see the problem. and know that i am ignorant of RC theology. Here’s a hypotheical dialogue to illustrate:
Calvinist = C; Non-Calvinist=NC
NC: You need to Love God. Jesus says so
C: Ok, how do I do that?
NC: Well, obey the law
C: Ok, how do I do that?
NC: Simple. Read your Bible, do all that it says. Follow it to a tee.
C: Ok, got it got it. This is exciting
(several hours later)
NC: Hi Calvinist. So, how’s it going?
C: Not good. I did a sin. I don’t love God.
NC: Well, try harder next time. Do what you should have done. read more Bible, etc etc etc… See you next time.
C: ok, bye.
(repeat cycle until physical death of either C or NC).
What I am illustrating is what I personally experienced as “peace” when I found calvinism. Jesus lived the perfect life. Satisfied the law. I have justification by grace alone, through faith alone, because of the finished work of Christ alone.
Now I am sure this conversation will continue much as it has for the last 500 (2000?) years. But after being raised in a pelagian church, Calvinism was a drink of cold water after a long walk through a desert. We’re pretty happy with what we’ve got.
I’ve got more to learn,
Andrew
Brad B said,
August 22, 2012 at 8:46 pm
But this is founded on a refuted premise, namely that works of mercy prove a state of grace/justification. Consider
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 8:57 pm
Jason:
“our Spirit-wrought works playing a role not just in the icing-on-the-cake rewards we may get, but in whether we are finally saved or not.”
So, I’m told you used to be a minister. You say I’ve got some works to do in order to enter into the presence of my Lord, after I die.
Tell me, what must I do to inherit eternal life?
You want to start looking at Biblical data. My suggestion – let’s look at Luke 18 together, brother.
Peace,
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:14 pm
Jeff, (re: #259)
The concepts and strictures in your own paradigm are not necessarily those of another paradigm. The Catholic paradigm distinguishes between guilt (culpa) and punishment (poena). (St. Augustine makes this distinction in De Libero Arbitrio.) The removal of culpa is not the same thing as the removal of poena, even though they take place at the very same instant. Justification is not temporally successive; it is an instantaneous event involving one divine act in the soul. Nevertheless, there is a natural order to this act, when considered in relation to that upon which God acts. God has to act first, and so the infusion of grace is first, turning the will (at the level of disposition) freely to God and away from sin, the result of which is the remission of guilt, and the canceling of the debt of punishment. So, both of your statements are true, but that does not mean there is no order in the divine act by which at one and the same moment, the infusion of light expels the darkness (hence we do not say the fleeing darkness impels the infusion of light).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Andrew,
As you know, there’re lots of ways to answer this question, biblically (the exact question is asked a handful of times in the NT).
“Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.”
“Repent and be baptized.”
And if you are already a believer, “Love God and neighbor.”
Gotta go, sorry so short.
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:29 pm
And to add to Andrew’s comments regarding our works:
From John 6:
26 Jesus answered them and said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled.
27 Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal.”
28 Therefore they said to Him, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?”
29 Jesus answered and said to them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
Me: The meritorious efficaciousness of our works begin and end with our finding refuge in the reconcilliation of sinners in Christ Jesus.
As per Calvin:
In this way we can admit not only that there is a partial righteousness in works, (as our adversaries maintain,) but that they are approved by God as if they were absolutely perfect. If we remember on what foundation this is rested, every difficulty will be solved. The first time when a work begins to be acceptable is when it is received with pardon. And whence pardon, but just because God looks upon us and all that belongs to us as in Christ? Therefore, as we ourselves when engrafted into Christ appear righteous before God, because our iniquities are covered with his innocence; so our works are, and are deemed righteous, because every thing otherwise defective in them being buried by the purity of Christ is not imputed…
Thus we may justly say, that not only ourselves, but our works also, are justified by faith alone…
Me: the wonder working power of the blood of Christ our Savior!
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:39 pm
And a little more Calvin:
In short, I affirm, that not by our own merit but by faith alone, are both our persons and works justified; and that the justification of works depends on the justification of the person, as the effect on the cause. (John Calvin, Acts of the Council of Trent with the Antidote)
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Jack,
Amen to it being solely due to the merit of Jesus’ death and resurrection that we can be saved. But as you know, there’s a lot more the NT has to say about our works and their contribution to our final salvation.
“They will walk with me in white, for they are worthy.”
“Their white robes are the righteous acts of the saints.”
Part of what makes the gospel so glorious and God-glorifying is the fact that, by grace, God allows us to participate in Jesus’ work of cross-bearing.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Jason at 268,
I disagree with your last one. Not that I shouldn’t love. It is just, we are at odds.
I would like to golf with you, if you are ever back in Cali. Yes, I know you sprang from So. Cal. I went tom school in Santa Barbara, so you and I are cool, on that front.
More later,
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Jason,
And what is it that makes those works righteous and acceptable?
Rev. 12:
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Without a doubt there must be works. But they are acceptable works, not because of their inherent merit, but only because they are washed white as snow in the red blood of Christ.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm
Andrew,
I’ve argued here somewhere that Jesus’ answer to the scribe about inheriting eternal life (love God and neighbor) is not intended to be taken as a first-use, drive-’em-to-the-cross sense, but as normative, and as the way of life that the Spirit would eventually empower us for.
I would argue something similar about Rom. 2. “According to Paul’s gospel,” God will “grant eternal life” to those who “continue in doing good by seeking glory, honor, and immortality.”
I realize all of that has to be demonstrated and I’m just stating it, but I’ve got 3 little ones I’m trying to police. I mean parent.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:56 pm
PS – Golf’s for people who don’t surf….
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Jack, I don’t disagree at all!
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Three little ones. Another commonality! Let’s keep talking.
More later.
PS I will take up surfing again, after I become a marathon runner. Peace
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:08 pm
Jason,
Works are evidence of a true and lively faith in the blood of Christ, not as contributing to the salvation wrought by Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. The believer’s all is a testimony to the reconciliation of God in Christ crucified; not an addendum to help secure his place in heaven.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:17 pm
We love our children, even if they don’t love us…
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Jack,
Yes, I know that is what you think. But no matter how often you repeat it (and even if you use all caps), it still fails to refute the exegetical arguments I have been making here.
So, would you kindly (1) prove from Scripture your assertion above, and (2) refute my interpretation of the passages I have adduced, using the passages themselves, and others if need be?
This will continue to be my constant refrain, because with the exception of Jeff, all I’m really getting is the Reformed position repeated with no actual demonstration of its truth.
Thanks.
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:49 pm
Jason,
wrote: Part of what makes the gospel so glorious and God-glorifying is the fact that, by grace, God allows us to participate in Jesus’ work of cross-bearing.
We participate in the work of Jesus’ cross-bearing?!
Pa-leease… No one participates in Christ’s cross-bearing. Everyone deserted Him. And if you give it some serious thought, so have (and do) you. I know I do so daily. The grace of God regarding the imperfect works of bearing our own cross as His servants is that they are covered by Christ’s ever-efficacious blood, a grace wrought by Him alone on His bloody cross to which alone faith looks.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Jason at 268,
You missed the point. Please re-read Luke 18. There are not many ways to answer the rich young ruler’s question. Jesus answered with a riddle about a camel. The answer is that only with God is it possible.
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Jason,
You quoting me:
Works are evidence of a true and lively faith in the blood of Christ, not as contributing to the salvation wrought by Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection….
and you:
Yes, I know that is what you think.
you wrote previously:
Amen to it being solely due to the merit of Jesus’ death and resurrection that we can be saved.
What am I missing?
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Jason,
wrote: Yes, I know that is what you think. But no matter how often you repeat it (and even if you use all caps), it still fails to refute the exegetical arguments I have been making here.
So, would you kindly (1) prove from Scripture your assertion above, and (2) refute my interpretation of the passages I have adduced, using the passages themselves, and others if need be?
This will continue to be my constant refrain, because with the exception of Jeff, all I’m really getting is the Reformed position repeated with no actual demonstration of its truth.
Jason, I am just responding to your comments to me responding to comments by Andrew. Isn’t that acceptable? It’s a blog… kinda like a bunch of us sitting around a table at a pub.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Jason (re: 248)
OK, let me try again (but in your next comment you need to actually interact with what I say rather than continue to disagree for no stated reason):
So you are trying to make a connection now to Gal 5 and 6. I’m sorry, did I miss this before? Where did you previously make this connection to me? Was it in #210? Was it in #133? Was it in previous posts to someone else that I missed? I’m reading back through previous posts to me and I have not found it. I really would like you to tell me where you previously made this case to me. I don’t want you to have to make your case “again” so if I’m missing something please let me know via reference to your previous posts, OK?
Finally, he says, if we sow to the Spirit, we will reap eternal life (hence the causality: people who reap are not just people who happen to have unrelatedly sown. People who reap are people who reap because they have sown.
So Gal. 6:8 must be put into the context of the previous chapter of Galatians rather than the verses the immediately surround Gal. 6:8? Could I suggest that the context of Gal. 6:8 is most immediately Gal 6:1-7? So what does Gal. 6:1-7 have to do with the means of justification? Or for that matter what does Gal. 5: 16-26 have to do with the means of justification?
And what does “FWTL” stand for?
People who reap are people who reap because they have sown. Only the most crass Edwardsian would deny the causality here). And as I argued earlier, this is the exact same progression that we find in all the principal NT writers.
Duh yea, nobody is denying causality here. But as folks have pointed out numerous times here, it is the nature of the causality that is at question here. The question is what exactly the cause and the results are. There is a general relationship here – If WE reap something it is because something that WE have sown – that’s clear. But what does this have to do with what GOD does with what WE sow? Your statements connecting what we reap and what we sow just underlines something basic to Reformed theology. And isn’t that exactly what Gal. 6:8 and it’s immediate text getting at? Or does Gal. 6:8 refer to something that GOD does with what WE sow?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Jack,
“Unless you bear your cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple.”
“I have been crucified with Christ….”
“As many of you as were baptized, were baptized into Christ’s death.”
“Joint heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him.”
My guess is that you actually agree with me, but since you don’t understand what I am saying you choose to take a dismissive tone rather than just ask what I mean. But if you had asked, I would have answered that the NT everywhere speaks of us as co-sufferers with Christ because we are united with him. The Christian life is all about going to him outside the gate and bearing the reproach he endured.
My point is, just ask what I mean if I say something that sounds silly to you (especially when I am also apologizing for being so brief because I’m trying to take care of my kids). You may actually discover that I’m not a complete moron.
Except for the guy who actually and literally bore his cross.
No argument here.
You seem to think that I am saying that my works are perfect and therefore have no need of Jesus’ blood or cross, in which case you’re not paying attention and just hearing from me what you previously decided I must be saying.
isaiah said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Jason (271 & 274):
I think you’re on to something there. Really, the Scriptures (OT included) are filled with that kind of language. Consider Micah 6:8:
If the Lord requires this, then it is imperative that we do so. Another example is Ezekiel 18.
For me, these commands to be holy and righteous are not at odds with the fact that it is Christ who merited salvation for us (unequivocally), and that His grace is sufficient for our conversion and for a life of holiness accomplished in and through Him and for His glory alone.
ih.
Zrim said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:27 pm
(JJS, golf is a pilgrim sport invented in the land of Presbyterians. So, it sort of makes sense that you don’t play.)
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Jack,
You’re missing the fact that I think you are presenting a false dilemma when you insist that either Jesus provides the merit to save me, or my works are inherently meritorious on their own grounds. The biblical position is that Jesus’ merit is the basis for my salvation, and that the works he produces in me are graciously contributory. This is because God is a Father who, in Christ, is reconstituting humanity in his Son, which involves my bearing the image of Jesus by imitating him by offering myself as a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling aroma.
jsm52 said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:44 pm
Jason,
You may actually discover that I’m not a complete moron.
I certainly don’t think that.
“Unless you bear your cross and follow me, you cannot be my disciple.”
Bearing our cross is not a paticipation in Christ’s cross.
No one is making the case that we are not called to suffer for the name of Christ.
You seem to think that I am saying that my works are perfect and therefore have no need of Jesus’ blood or cross, in which case you’re not paying attention and just hearing from me what you previously decided I must be saying.
Not at all. I just hear you (or Rome) claiming that somehow man’s works somehow add to the merit necessary for salvation, which you are also affirming has been supplied by Jesus alone. I think I do understand the RCC position. I just think it is wrong.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 22, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Andrew,
This entire thread is about Lane’s response to me where I first brought up the Galatians text (he even links right to it). I am pretty sure I have written about it here further in the last week, but I can’t give you an exact comment number. I apologize if you hadn’t come across it. On second thought, in your last comment you made reference to my argument specifically, so I know you’ve seen some version of it.
I know you know that Paul didn’t put the chapter- and verse-references in there, they are added later and are often somewhat artificial. So it doesn’t matter whether we are placing Paul’s words in the context of statements made in a previous chapter. The real question is whether the context I am arguing for is in fact where Paul’s train of thought begins. And if you look at my argument, you will see that I trace very clearly his progression from justification to love, from love to the Spirit, and from the Spirit to eternal life.
Faith working through love.
The passage is about what we sow, and what we reap as a result of it. Of course, our ability to sow in the first place is due to God’s gracious gift of life, just like the ability of the faithful servant to make ten talents was due to his master giving him five. But my point is that in both these cases—and in all the passages I have listed—our Spirit-wrought works of love are a contributing cause to our final salvation.
And so far, no one but Jeff has even tried to argue from Scripture otherwise.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:01 am
Jack,
I hate to use the P-word, but you are still evaluating what I am saying through the lens of your own paradigm, according to which any contributions I make necessarily devalue Jesus’ work by robbing him of glory.
But glory is not a zero-sum game, any more than my own son’s learning how to dress himself threatens me because I think he doesn’t need me as much as he used to. In fact, the more my son grows and exhibits my traits and displays my image, the more glorified I am.
For the reasons I just stated, I don’t think you do understand it. Trust me, I had all the exact same objections as you a few years ago, for the exact same reasons. It wasn’t until I understood the Catholic paradigm that I realized my objections amounted to nothing more than criticizing Rome for not being Genevan enough (which is question-begging).
But it’s not all about paradigms, of course. I also have begun to see that the familial paradigm has infinitely greater explanatory power for way more of the biblical data than I ever thought it did.
PS – If you think what I am saying is wrong, feel free to argue as much from the Bible.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:20 am
This entire thread is about Lane’s response to me where I first brought up the Galatians text…
Jason,
If you say that I’m ignoring what you have to say, I’m assuming that this references my previous post(s). If there is some larger context that I am to refer to that I’m supposed to respond to maybe you could reference that. Sound reasonable?
I know you know that Paul didn’t put the chapter- and verse-references in there, they are added later and are often somewhat artificial.
Fine, you want to make the case that Paul does not shift focus at all and everything he says must be brought back to the means by which God justifies us? And you are sure that Gal. 6:1-7 must be speaking of such means? But I just don’t see how Gal. 6:1-7 speaks to the issue of how we are justified. Is it possible that he has shifted focus? Take another example – Does everything in the book of Romans after Rom. 6 tie back to justification or is it possible that Paul shifts focus in later chapters of Romans? Forget about chapter divisions – tell me about what Gal. 6:1-7 says and whether it is focused on the mechanics of justification.
And so far, no one but Jeff has even tried to argue from Scripture otherwise.
There are no shortage of Scriptures which speak of our justification being parts from the works we do. We have not gotten into these (maybe Jeff did). I was hoping that you might see that the passages you picked could be taken either way. That is, they associate faith and works without one necessarily being causative of the other. But if we really want to talk about passages that clearly speak to the means by which we are justified then we can do that. My central point is that such verses as Gal. 6:8 don’t obviously speak to the issue of the means by which God justifies us, nor does the immediate context speak to the matter.
jsm52 said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:38 am
Jason,
I hate to use the P-word, but you are still evaluating what I am saying through the lens of your own paradigm
Indeed, a two-edged sword.
according to which any contributions I make necessarily devalue Jesus’ work by robbing him of glory.
Contributions we make… To what effect? To the salvation that was wrought by Christ’s merit alone? Or is it simply our walking in the good works prepared beforehand for us by God, acceptable only by Christ’s blood to God’s glory?
Trust me
If you were a politician, I would be grabbing to protect my wallet. ;-)
I wouldn’t assume that my questions or objections are the same as yours were. And frankly, the whole paradigm approach… isn’t it a bit of question-begging, in and of itself? How did Paul ever cut through all the competing philosophies of his Greek hearers to deliver and communicate the gospel? I don’t think he gave them the paradigm first.
Again, I think I understand the RCC position. And, I may have more familiarity with it than you realize.
cheers…
Susan said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:42 am
I’ve been advised that I balance my blog reading by including learned Reformers as I am in the process of moving closer to Rome. Unfortunately what I found debated here is very clearly explained in intelligent and well written articles at Called to Communion minus the snark and ad hominems.
Sorry, but I’ve got to be frank, this site’s administrator seems to permit pot shots and locker room butt slapping. If there was volume I think the laughter would sound like Patrick from Spongebob. Fun if your in detention, but if your seriously looking to for understanding there are better places to waste time.
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:29 am
I’ve put up an article at Triablogue this morning, which speaks to the heart of the disagreement on Justification. I think an understanding of some of the historical issues are very important to understanding this discussion in the present time:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/augustine-goofs-on-justification-whole.html
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:39 am
Jason at 292:
“The more my son grows and exhibits…the more glorified I am”
Can’t say I agree, on your relationship with your own son, or the theological truth.
Jason, I can’t help but think of your former congregation right now. As they see you continuing to write.
It sounds like you are happy with your decision and where you are at. I don’t know the history of all this (you bloggers have been going at it a while).
I do pray that whatever blogging and commenting we all do, is to Gods glory. But our righteousness is filthy rags. May we be thankful children, as we consider that God has so condescended, that he has regarded you and me. Indeed, “what is man that you are mindful of him.”
The only other verse I can think of is how “the glory of the children is their father.” As a human, I necessarily fail and don’t love my children as I should. But someone has fulfilled that law. I rest on his law keeping, for peace for my soul. Or,as I read your quote on your blog about imputation, “I am so thankful for the active obedience of Christ…no hope without it.” You know who I quote, Jason.
Here’s the glory of the father thing. Sorry if I am incoherent. I wish you all the best. Nice chatting, maybe we can surf someday, although Santa Barbara isn’t the best. Come up to Santa Cruz. Sometimes I wonder what they put in the water down their in So. Cal. Just kidding.
http://www.esvbible.org/search/proverbs+17%3A6/
Peace,
AB
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:53 am
JB 295,
Looks like a great article, I look forward to reading. I was especially pleased when searching for, ‘Stellman’, there were no references in your article. What we are talking about is much bigger than one former PCA minister, as sad as we l can be to see one of our own, leave us.
I may be the wookie over in ‘evoltuion land,’ on those strings here at GB. But we all know who is the wookie around here. The wise words (not exactly quoting Scripture) are, ‘let him win.’
These aren’t the droids your looking for.
Nothing to see here. “Move along! Move along!“
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 8:47 am
PS I really was incoherent with my “glory” thing and verse, in 296. It took a 2.2 mile run for me to get my wits about me…
The point is, in Scripture, we see, “Abraham is our father…” Meaning, we as God’s children, glory in who our Heavenly Father is.
I really don’t see myself as adding to God’s glory. Rather, it is in union and communion with Christ that I SHARE in God’s glory. It’s all his to start with. Sure, I plan to be in a glorified state someday. But the basis is not me, Andrew Buckingham. It is in Him, whom I have trust.
[post trimmed by moderator]
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:08 am
Bryan 254: Hodge’s premises are true, but his conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises.
So you say. It’s your word vs. his. And I’m far more inclined to take him at his word. Your methodology is to say “he thinks (incorrectly) that there is some inconsistency in the Catholic doctrine”. But your method involves assuming that Catholic doctrine is not inconsistent, so therefore there is no inconsistency. You’re just magically correct in this.
I don’t buy into your particular brand of make-believe.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:16 am
John, (re: #299)
Those who have never taken logic are dependent on others to evaluate the soundness of arguments for them. If I were in that position, I’d probably do exactly what you’re doing: trust those I know. But there is another alternative — learn logic, so that you don’t have to take people’s word about whether an argument is valid or invalid.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:20 am
Bryan, I’m also unwilling to follow one of your rabbit trails. A huge portion of your conclusion involves checking facts, which I’m sure you didn’t do, and I know that Hodge was a very thorough theologian, relying on other reliable theologians. I posted the article as background info for Jeff, not to make a statement about it.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:23 am
Jason (#261): Without trying to over-interpret the parable, would you not agree that the basics of Catholic soteriology fit quite nicely with the basics of what is taught in it?
No, actually, I wouldn’t. The key point that is missing is this (cross-posting from the other thread): Where does the third servant show any evidence of an initial justification? He ought to have some kind of love that then goes away, or that he destroys by mortal sin.
Instead, he sins because he has fear and mistrust of the master from the beginning.
Not that I’m biased ;), but I think the Reformed understanding sticks to the details of the text better; it runs closer to the metal.
—
David G, I’ll try to push on Gal 5 a bit more.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:34 am
I understand the motives of reformed dudes posting out here. Pretty loving of faithful men to answer and answer and keep answering. Especially of questions from people who claim they were once reformed. Its Mr Cross and Mr Stellman I dont get. Oh yeah, Cross runs a website to ‘se’ people from reformed theology.
Keep it up, C2C people. The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers…
Jeff Cagle said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:34 am
Jason, to put the point another way: I understand all of these parables, including the sheep and goats, in terms of the basic “root and fruit” paradigm of Matt 7.
The Catholic paradigm would have us believe that in fact there are two different roots going on in an individual, and the thing that determines their eternal destiny is which root the free will chooses to follow.
Well, the deciding organ — the free will itself — which root does it belong to?
On the one hand, if it is transformed by agape, then why doesn’t that will always make righteous choices?
On the other, if it is not transformed, then in what sense can we make righteous choices at all?
On the third hand, if the free will is somewhat transformed and somewhat not transformed, then what organ controls that free-will to determine whether we freely choose the good or the bad?
In my view, the very notion of “free-will” as an organ that chooses between the natures is philosophically incoherent — it leads to infinite regress and a mental model in which the real “me” stands outside of my own desires and arbitrates between them.
The Reformed solution is to understand all of these parables in light of root and fruit. There is a good root in the justified because God has already determined that they will be righteous, and works by His Spirit to sanctify those whom He has declared righteous. The ‘old man’ is dead but not gone; the ‘new man’ is alive but not perfected, and we act according to the desires of our heart. In that sense, and only in that sense, are the wills free.
Only one root is alive by the work of the Spirit, which is why, ultimately, the saints persevere.
The root, not the free-will, determines the fruit.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:34 am
*save
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 9:47 am
BC wrote:
It’s amazing how much credit private judgment gets when it comes to some things but not others.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:08 am
Turretin the Puritan:
Valid point.
Not knowing specifically your eclessiological leanings, as Orthodox Presbyterians, we take a vow upon membership to submit to the leadership in a local congregation.
My private judgment is part and parcel to my Christian Liberty. But being a presbyterian means I submit to oversight. Hence the problem with Romanism – is there anyone to whom the Pope must answer?
Presbyterianism is something I treasure. It’s Jesus that I love. But I sense the Spirit is moving amongst presbyterian churches. It’s too bad Cross and Stellman may be learning, too late, just how poorly manicured the Pope’s golf courses are. As I recall, Luther also was pretty saddened by what he found.
The Pope may not be updating twitter, does anyone know if he blogs? Does he allow comments via comboxes? I’d like to check out what his fingers are pouring forth.
On second thought, I’ve got better things to read.
Peace,
Andrew
Zrim said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:30 am
Those who have never taken logic are dependent on others to evaluate the soundness of arguments for them. If I were in that position, I’d probably do exactly what you’re doing: trust those I know. But there is another alternative — learn logic, so that you don’t have to take people’s word about whether an argument is valid or invalid.
Bryan, for one so opposed to private judgment and so affirming of implicit faith in the Magisterium this is an amazingly ironic statement.
Zrim said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:31 am
You seem to think that I am saying that my works are perfect and therefore have no need of Jesus’ blood or cross, in which case you’re not paying attention and just hearing from me what you previously decided I must be saying.
JJS, this is what can get frustrating. I understand you’re wanting to make the Catholic case by way of Protestant methodology (what does the Bible say?). But at some point the Protestant project is also about evaluating a case made that isn’t Protestant, and one of the evaluations is how the Catholic case undercuts the exclusive work of Christ. I know you know that, and I know you make room for faith and even for the cross of Christ (though for different purposes than substitutionary atonement). But it isn’t the case that we “aren’t paying attention” so much as bringing the Catholic case in for criticism of what it seems to clearly imply. That might irk you, but we see it as our great burden, something I think you also understand, so I’d ask that you dial down the suggestion that nobody is paying attention to you or even understanding you.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 11:19 am
“Those who have never taken logic are dependent on others to evaluate the soundness of arguments for them. If I were in that position, I’d probably do exactly what you’re doing: trust those I know. But there is another alternative — learn logic, so that you don’t have to take people’s word about whether an argument is valid or invalid.”
My logic class (called Philosophy 3) at UCSB was extremely Atheistic. Just FYI.
I don’t think it’s for lack of logic that people tend to want to set aside their own reasoning capabilities, and instead simply parrot others. There’s much more psychology involved with in individual who does not feel comfortable in his/her own skin.
Once we recognize our identity is in Christ, we are no longer slaves to our old way, whereby we identified with our career, our abilities, or our reasoning or logic skills. We put all those squarely at the foot of Jesus, and serve him with all that is in us. Not because the church tells us that in so doing, we contribute to God’s glory. But rather, once we come under a full conviction of our sin and what God did in order to procure our salvation, we truly will run and not grow weary. Walk, and not become faint.
http://www.esvbible.org/search/isaiah+40%3A31/
http://www.hark.com/clips/zzbqrwjswk-what-are-you-trying-to-tell-me-that-i-can-dodge-bullets
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Michael, right. I was speaking in human terms. Who gives the pope his yearly review and rating? Who determines whether he gets a raise?
Luther had a simple message: indulgences have to go. That led to the correct questioning of papal infallibility.
Why doesn’t the pope even entertain my offer to golf with him?
If he’s got time for twitter feeds, clearly, he must have time to hit the links every once in a while.
Oh, that’s right, he’s no presbyterian…popes do other things to get their frustration out. to let off steam.
some people use comboxes.
All fine and dandy.
You GB’ers crack me up. If you won’t golf with me, anyone want to go for a run on Saturday? I’m slow right now….but getting better every day!
For His glory alone,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:15 pm
I might add, that the Pope is not the only one with physical death in his future. I’ve actually been told that once day my brain waves will cease as well. Again, all fine and good. Can we see that as a part of God’s plan, these things are exactly as they should be? Sure, sin entered in, death is unnatural, yeah yeah, I get that.
Hence the God who died for us, to take care of the problem.
That God, he thought of everything…
One would expect a loving God is with us not only in our grandiose theological blog comments. He’s with us in the details. Sure, the devil may be in the details (as an accountant, I kinda get this), but God’s there all the more. In fact, he’s with me while I go about my daily labor.
Bringing glory to Himself.
You want to know what glory I bring to the table, to add to God’s glory?
Ummmm…
Catholics – what does your good works look like before a holy God?
There’s a great Five Iron Frenzy song, about a child bringing a dandilion to his/her parent. FIF fans, back me up.
Humor me – I’m a nor-cal guy. Don’t get me started on the Christian Rock scene of the 1990’s. And all the bands that came through Concord CA.
I could go on…
David Gadbois said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Andrew B. and others, I have trimmed back some of the comments here. Please stay focused and on-topic, and don’t put video links on the combox unless there is a very compelling reason to do so.
The scriptural issues Jason S. brings up here are very relevant, and worth taking the time to answer thoughtfully (unlike those of most of his CTC brethren). And we genuinely thank him for sticking to substantive issues and avoiding the dishonest games we see around here too often. Lane (and some commenters such as Jeff Cagle) have begun providing such answers, for which I am grateful. I’m sure Lane will have more posts to come to follow up on more of these issues, but I have not been able to get a hold of him via e-mail for a few days, so I am quite sure he is legitimately busy with, well, the sort of all-consuming business that one would expect of a full-time pastor. So please be patient.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 12:55 pm
David G, yes, please trim away. I do get carried away (understatement of the year?)
I think I finally get “TF’s” idea of no church affiliations through his blogging.
The problem I have with all of this is that the line between church and blog is being blurred.
TF, I leave this all in your capable hands.
See you all around e-mail airwaves,
Andrew
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 1:43 pm
Andrew,
Concerning your assertion that Gal. 6:1-7, and not anything in Gal. 5, should be considered the context of 6:8-9, I wrote, “I know you know that Paul didn’t put the chapter- and verse-references in there, they are added later and are often somewhat artificial. So it doesn’t matter whether we are placing Paul’s words in the context of statements made in a previous chapter. The real question is whether the context I am arguing for is in fact where Paul’s train of thought begins.”
And you responded:
Andrew, I have connected these dots for you in every way imaginable. I am not going to take you by the hand and do all the work for you. If you cannot see how, in my understanding, Paul’s statements about sowing to the Spirit are connected to his prior statement about being justified by faith working through love, then I suggest we drop it and move on to something else. We’re clearly just not communicating well at this point.
You ask if “it is possible” that Paul shifted gears, thus destroying the connection I am making. The answer is yes. If you want to try to make that argument instead of just asking me if it is possible that I might be wrong, I’d be happy to listen. But again, that’s your job, not mine.
I wrote, “And so far, no one but Jeff has even tried to argue from Scripture otherwise,” and you responded:
Yes, comparing paradigms often means that a given passage could be taken in multiple ways depending on the lenses through which one is looking and the assumptions he brings to the table. I am trying to show that the “agape paradigm” has more explanatory value than the imputation one. You have disagreed with me, but haven’t attempted to provide an alternative (beyond merely restating your position over and over again).
Yes, that is your point, but so far you haven’t argued it. But let’s drop this passage since we’re clearly getting nowhere, and I’ll suggest a different one:
What is the “means by which we are justified” in Matt. 12:36-37?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Back up one verse, Jason. I think you skipped that one. Or back up one more verse, and see who it is that Jesus is talking to.
Jesus is saying vs. 36-37 in light of his statement about “evil” persons and “good” persons. There’s an ordo-salutis thing very clear in that Matt 12 passage.
The main thrust of Scripture speaks to a God who chooses Jacob/Esau before the foundation of the world.
But don’t take my word for it. Listen to the guys who know their greek. My only point is, that I don’t think your point holds, when read, in context.
Peace.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 1:54 pm
Jeff,
Yes, and the Catholic position sees a baptized person as having received the life of God within him, such that “as many of you as were baptized, were baptized into Christ’s death [and resurrection]”; “Repent and be baptized, and you will receive the gift of the Spirit”; “Rise, brother Saul, be baptized and wash away your sins”; “by the washing of regeneration… so that, being justified….”
And of course, in Catholicism the number of the elect is smaller than the number of those regenerated in baptism.
Would you say that the real issue here is whether one can indeed be well-rooted and yet, due to his failure to bear fruit, be up-rooted? Because it seems to me from what you say above that such a thing is impossible.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Of course, I know I am butting in. Too many andrew’s around here… :-)
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:07 pm
Zrim,
Asking what the Bible says is not “Protestant methodology.” Do you really think that? I ask, because I am running the risk of saying that you don’t understand what Catholics believe about where Scripture fits in their view of authority, and I know you hate that.
When you (or whoever) insist that what I am saying undercuts Jesus’ sufficiency, you are making a claim that contains within it a view of Jesus’ sufficiency that is uniquely Protestant, as I explained to Jack last night. It’s not a theologically neutral claim. So when I try to show that your view of sufficiency is different from mine, your job is to compare the two approaches to that issue and show why yours is better.
That is very different from just continuing to insist that my view devalues Jesus’ work or undercuts his sufficiency.
But Steve, in this very comment of yours you are demonstrating a lack of awareness of just how deep and paradigmatic our differences are, as well as (another) misstatement of the role of Scripture in Catholicism, despite my trying to explain to you at least twice before that you are misrepresenting your opponents.
Now, that might irk you, but I trust we’ve known each other long enough for a bit or irking now and again.
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Jason, with this statement:
you sound just like the Dentist from the Seinfeld episode, who converted to Judaism, and said, “Jerry, our people have suffered for 5000 years …”
You really do need to get on the sacramental treadmill for a few years, and have some fights with your wife about using birth control, and experience the kids not wanting to go to Mass on Sunday, and you wondering if you were sick enough to stay home, and is this even worth bringing up to the priest in confession.
Do that for a while, and maybe you’ll have something to complain about.
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:17 pm
P.S. re my 321, I am not an anti-Dentite.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:22 pm
You’re a rabid anti-Dentite. Pretty soon you’ll be saying they should have their own schools.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Jason (#320): Asking what the Bible says is not “Protestant methodology.” Do you really think that?
I do. I’ve been many rounds with Bryan Cross, and it always comes to this: If the Bible seems to say what Rome says, he quotes the Bible. If the Bible seems to contradict Rome, he tells me that “that’s my private interpretation” and “you are an individualist.”
Keep in mind that to join the Church, you must profess that you accept whatsoever the Church teaches.
There is no room for “asking what the Bible says” on any matter of serious importance in this paradigm. The freedom to “ask what the Bible says” is limited to matters not already defined by Rome.
The RC church claims creative authority over the canon, the authority to infallibly interpret the Scripture, and the responsibility of members to believe whatsoever the church teachers, even if “the church declares to be white what seems to me to be black.”
That is the force of Bryan’s arguments.
The reason I continue to hold out hope in our interactions is that you are still operating from the view that X theology is what is actually taught in the Scripture. Once you are all the way over, your view will be that X theology is infallible because the church teaches it, and any evidence in Scripture to the contrary must of course be misunderstood. Evidence is irrelevant, because evidence has to be interpreted and we already know that the Church is the highest and most correct interpretive authority.
Asking what the Bible says — and seeking to listen to the text without an answer key ready at hand — is a radical disruption to “I believe whatsoever the church teaches.”
WCoF 20.2: …and the requiring an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:42 pm
John
# 296
See here.
Zrim said,
August 23, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Asking what the Bible says is not “Protestant methodology.” Do you really think that? I ask, because I am running the risk of saying that you don’t understand what Catholics believe about where Scripture fits in their view of authority, and I know you hate that.
JJS, yes, I have always understood the Protestant method to be the formal principle of the Reformation: sola scriptura, or asking what the Bible teaches. And I’m not attempting to “understand what Catholics believe about where Scripture fits in their view of authority.” I am talking about YOUR project, which seems to me to be exegeting the Bible and showing how that corresponds to Catholic conclusions.
When you (or whoever) insist that what I am saying undercuts Jesus’ sufficiency, you are making a claim that contains within it a view of Jesus’ sufficiency that is uniquely Protestant, as I explained to Jack last night. It’s not a theologically neutral claim. So when I try to show that your view of sufficiency is different from mine, your job is to compare the two approaches to that issue and show why yours is better.
That is very different from just continuing to insist that my view devalues Jesus’ work or undercuts his sufficiency.
You are missing my point. I know what you think my Protestant job is, and I don’t have a problem with that. But what I am pointing out to you is that our job description is a little more expansive. Some here are trying to show why the Protestant view of sufficiency is superior to Rome’s. But sometimes it bears pointing out the implication of yours is to undermine the exclusive sufficiency of Christ. And it isn’t because nobody understands you or isn’t paying attention and is falling back on merely judging what they don’t understand (though I’m sure that does happen). It’s because it’s our job, and you’ll just have to accept that this comes with the territory of dealing with Reformed Prots, irksome as it may be.
But Steve, in this very comment of yours you are demonstrating a lack of awareness of just how deep and paradigmatic our differences are, as well as (another) misstatement of the role of Scripture in Catholicism, despite my trying to explain to you at least twice before that you are misrepresenting your opponents.
Now, that might irk you, but I trust we’ve known each other long enough for a bit or irking now and again.
Fubar (cashing in on some of that friendly history). Like I have suggested to you before, the paradigmatic differences are the primacy of ecclesia (Cat) and scriptura (Prot). I know you think I misunderstand and misrepresent, but the primacy of ecclesia is what comes through in 99% of the Roman representatives here and elsewhere (i.e. “The RCC is the church that Jesus Christ founded”). I reserve a percentage for folks like you who seem to be coming from another angle, namely scriptura.
And they DO have their own schools. Did you convert to Catholicism just for the jokes (lend Bryan a funny bone, will you please?)
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:07 pm
In my marriage I’ll admit that the church’s teaching on life is not easy. It is a cross to bear in many ways. But this is what we’re called to do. Being open to life comes with the vocation to which we’ve been called. Furthermore, bringing four young children to mass is very difficult. We’re usually huddled in the ‘cry’ room and often times I am the one who feels like crying! I can admit that Sunday mornings may just be the hardest time of the week for us at present.
Having said all of that we certainly don’t feel that we’re on some kind of ‘treadmill’ when we go to worship Jesus Christ and receive Him sacramentally. What a privilege. What a joy. My wife was raised in the Catholic Church but even in the years when we were Presbyterian she always held to a Catholic view of suffering and offering up our trials and pains to God.
johnbugay said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Don’t get me wrong Sean. The physical portions of the treadmill are bad enough. But when I started questioning myself for talking to the statues, then I think the Lord started working on my heart and convicting me of really how bad the doctrinal issues were. There was no “privilege” in Roman sacraments. Though if you believe there is, that is very telling.
sean said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:27 pm
Sean Patrick,
No offense but seeing as I was raised a cradle catholic and Irish on both sides, I feel I can speak to the matter; that’s what we called the martyr complex. You look up the phrase in the dictionary, and you see a picture of an Irish catholic mother. I don’t know if your wife is Irish, but I hope you take that with the humor with which it’s meant.
Sean Moore
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm
John # 328 – I don’t know what you are talking about when you say ‘physical portions’ of the treadmill?
Sean # 329 – I know what a ‘martyr complex’ is but that is not what I am talking about.
We could easily read St Paul and accuse him of a ‘martyr complex.’ I am talking about taking up our cross and following Jesus even when it makes us uncomfortable. Christians are not called to be comfortable and have it easy. Its not an easy road. Staying home in bed all day on Sunday is a lot easier than going to mass.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:35 pm
Your island? You mean, Ireland?
sean said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Sean P,
Sorry it bombed. That’s why I work for a living. I wasn’t trying to seriously suggest a flaw in your practice or your wife’s, my mother is/was famous for it in our family, along with other more ‘virtuous’ attributes but she wasn’t one to shy from the guilt trip and she wasn’t the only one. Anyway, never mind. My bad. I’ve argued from the start that sacerdotalism and the mass is the heart of Rome. I don’t question your sincerity in it’s practice, even if I no longer share your convictions.
sean said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:46 pm
JJS;
We still haven’t met an Englishman we thought was worth more than a plug nickel and don’t get me started on Lord Protectors. By the way, everyone else is British they aren’t English, and they’ll spill your blood if you get it wrong. Jus sayin’
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Well, I grant sean the award on this thread – ding ding ding – you got the 3 triple 3 comment award. That seems worth point out, trinitarians that we all are.
nice to see folks chumming it up around these parts. maybe just one day, we can set aside 500 (or more?) years of strife in this, our western church, and enjoy some psalm 133 fellowship.
it’s just nice that instead of the wars of 500 years ago, today, we only do this over theological blogs, like this pious place, green baggins.
thank you all, for your fellowship. thank you all, you moderators. but in the words of JV Fesko (link “theology” on my google profile), “the more things change, the more, they stay the same.”
the wars will continue. but nice to see men in the trenches enjoying a nice christmas together, as brothers.
remember, devoted and pious churchmen – we your congregants are reading your thoughts. take care.
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Sean Moore…It fine. I get it now, I think….
My wife is actually of Polish lineage however I am trying to instill in my children militant Irish pride.
sean said,
August 23, 2012 at 4:16 pm
Sean P,
Good man. The Irish are a gang at heart. Good luck with that. I mean it.
isaiah. said,
August 23, 2012 at 4:27 pm
John (328):
And right you were for doing so. Now, talking to Jesus and the saints is a whole different matter. But I suppose the materialists and atheists out there would question that practice. I pray that we never see the day they lock up all of us, Catholic and Protestant, for being downright loony bins! “Talking” to unseen things, indeed!
ih.
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Isaiah:
There’s nothing distinctly Christian about attempts to communicate with those in the afterlife. But your better off talking to statues – at least they have ears (though they cannot hear) and eyes (though they cannot see).
All those who offer dulia to them are like them.
-TurretinFan
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 4:41 pm
# 338.
Dulia is not offered to the statues.
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:12 pm
SP: Statues are venerated in your religion. Veneration, as distinct from adoration, is called “dulia.” You should learn what your religion actually teaches and then come to the Christian faith (or simply skip to step 2). -TurretinFan
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:23 pm
# 340.
Dulia is given to saints, not statues.
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:26 pm
On Dulia
“A further distinction is made between dulia in the absolute sense, the honour paid to persons, and dulia in the relative sense, the honour paid to inanimate objects, such as images and relics.”
In #338 you remarked how we give Dulia to statues but remark how the statues cannot hear. Of course the statues cannot hear. You conflate the Dulia (absolute) given to the saints who can hear and the relative Dulia, or honor paid towards images and relics.
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:37 pm
AB #334: Either Rome’s gospel is true and it is absolutely necessary for salvation to serve the Roman pontiff, or Rome’s gospel is false. If Rome’s gospel is true, then why are you not serving the Roman pontiff? If it is false, then why are you treating those who follow that gospel as brothers? Do you think that they don’t really believe what Rome teaches? That’s possible – some don’t really understand their religion. Do you think that they understand it but don’t follow it? That too is possible – in fact internally the “conservatives” and “liberals” accuse one another of not following “the Church”‘s teachings on different issues.
But I get the feeling that’s not what you meant.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 5:41 pm
SP:
I didn’t conflate anything. You claimed dulia is not given to statues in your religion. Now you know better.
Instead of apologizing for your false accusation and thanking me for educating you, you just add a new false accusation. Your fruit shows your root.
-TurreitnFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:08 pm
“If it is false, then why are you treating those who follow that gospel as brothers?”
I’ll answer when addressed. But otherwise, will remain silent.
I think it’s a fair question. Until I met this blog and all the characters out here, I had only really started asking questions of 1 roman catholic who I met several months ago. I think the other RC I met was perhaps a date on Valentines day, freshman year at UCSB. I didn’t ask her a lot of theology on that date (or if I did, perhaps that’s why a second never materialised…)
No matter.
I don’t know TurretinFan – wishful thinking? I agree their pontiff creates a problem, a rift. I suppose if the world was going according to my way, yeah, the Pope would step down, and acknowledge that Christ is the true head of the church.
But I’ll be the first to say – I don’t know what I’m doing out here in these blogs. Other than looking for friends. That and trying to be as honest (in and amongst my snark) as I can.
Is calling them brothers going too far? Ok, I’ll grant you the point. In the kids music we have, there’s a song by “They might be giants,” called, “my brother the ape” (on a cd called, “here comes science.”)
We skip that song, by the way, when we are listening to the others, about the planets, the period tables, etc.
I also here there’s good music and song for saplings.
Here’s my question to whomever will take the call:
“What does the future of Rome/Geneva dialogue look like?”
You all chew on that. I’ll be asking my committee on ecumenicity the question, in the meantime. Again, there are proper means and procedures. For me to be out here on blogs, huffing, puffing, and pontificating, this is not what makes God happy, at least for me.
Trying to be open and honest, TF. Any other questions, shoot me another e-mail. I appreciate hearing from you or any other who takes that route.
Golf?
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:17 pm
I just call it like I see it. I thought I saw the troops laying down their arms, playing some soccer in the “dead zone” of green baggins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce
who knows,
andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:18 pm
*no man’s land
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:20 pm
don’t worry, TF, if need be, the mods can trim my comments. I’m ready for a fight. soccer game is over.
i’m just a guy, who kinda wants to find someone to golf friday mornings. peace?
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:22 pm
#344.
Glad we’re clear that your #338 was a straw man as Catholics do not believe that statues ‘hear them.’
isaiah. said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:23 pm
AB (345):
Just a quick correction on this:
The Pope already acknowledges that Christ is the true head of the Church, as every good Christian should. If you mean that “the Pope is the head of the college of bishops,” which is a very different thing indeed, then I’m not sure why that would necessitate his “stepping down”.
ih.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm
isaiah,
we’re cool. but let me get that from the horses mouth. do you know if he golfs?
i’ll be sure to ask him when i see him.
still hasn’t returned my call, I’d settle for a Saturday run around my block,
andrew
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:26 pm
#349. In case its not clear, Turretin Fan, in Dulia that we give to saints we do not believe that statues hear us. Hence the straw man in #344.
But, happy to assist you in your understanding.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:28 pm
further questions should not be addressed to me, in this forum. I’m to busy training for a marathon.
although please e-mail me (andrew(dot)d(dot)buckingham(at)gmail(dot)com).
I will not be looking at this website until 2013.
Otherwise, please see this website, for all matters pertaining to geneva and rome:
http://www.opc.org/icr.html
peace, all.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:31 pm
ps my comments in this blog do not represent anything other than my own personal opinions. i represent no organization or church body blah blah blah
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm
SP #349 & #352. No, you didn’t properly understand my original comment. Perhaps that is due to a lack of clarity from my side. Let me clarify.
I fully acknowledge you guys are trying to communicate with dead people, not trying to communicate with the wood. I take you for idolaters, not fools.
I was saying you would be better off trying to talk to the statues themselves – at least they have the eyes and ears that the dead lack. At least you can know your words reach the statutes – you have no good reason to think they reach Mary, Joseph, Jude, Anthony, or any of the other of your pantheon.
That’s what my typo-burdened line, “But your [sic for you’re] better off talking to statues,” was intended to convey to you – that you would be better off talking to the statue.
Of course, the best approach would be to follow the apostolic tradition and pray to God alone. That’s better than your religion.
-TurretinFan
Sean Patrick said,
August 23, 2012 at 6:52 pm
# 355. Thanks for clarifying.
The apostolic tradition is the belief in the communion of saints but that is better saved for another day.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:20 pm
see, isaiah at 350 (and yes, breaking my vow of silence), what you aren’t getting, is that the pope does not have oversight. however, my pastor, who may golf with me someday (he hasn’t taken it up yet…to busy). but he does come to my house, and had me over for dinner and beer a while back.
the pope doesn’t even update his twitter feed!!!!
it’s an oversight issue.
so much more to be said. and it will continue. we should all stop blogging, and seek the proper people for answers, or go through right channels.
as far as i am concerned, we are all just out here, looking for friends.
for brothers.
peace.
TurretinFan said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:22 pm
SP: My pleasure.
If you think that the expression “communion of saints” was in the “Apostles’ Creed,” from the earliest era you may want to check out Rufinus’ commentary on the creed (4th century or so). That’s even leaving aside the issue of the changing meaning of the expression “communion of saints” over time.
Ultimately, when you explore the historical record, the fact is that the apostolic church had no such tradition of trying to communicate with the dead. It was not something handed down to the fathers, but rather something that developed out of a variety of things, especially the great respect that was given to martyrs and their mortal remains (the “cult of martyrs” as it is sometimes called).
It’s not an apostolic tradition, just as the papacy is not an apostolic tradition (it’s a development). Usually, in this kind of discussion, I’m told that it’s not fair for me to expect a fully a developed view of X in the apostolic era. But that wasn’t my point. My point is that neither the papacy nor prayers to the deceased were traditions delivered by the apostles.
I will not press you to answer the above points – I merely offer them up as something for you to check and see whether I speak the truth about this matter.
-TurretinFan
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Zrim (re: #309)
I’m sure you know that Catholics do not have to consult the Holy See for the answers whenever we solve logic problems, or math problems. And surely you don’t think that Catholic doctors, scientists and accountants must send all their provisional findings to the Pope for an infallible confirmation.
There is a difference between nature and grace, between the natural and the supernatural, between reason and faith, between what is knowable by the natural power of reason, and what is knowable only by divine revelation. Unaided human reason is competent in matters intelligible by its natural light, but unaided human reason is not competent or capable in matters beyond its natural light, i.e. what is supernatural. There is nothing wrong with private judgment per se, but it is wrong to treat unauthorized private judgment as authoritative when there is a divinely appointed authority to which our private judgments are to be subject.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 23, 2012 at 8:50 pm
Jason (re: 316),
If you cannot see how, in my understanding, Paul’s statements about sowing to the Spirit are connected to his prior statement about being justified by faith working through love….
I have been very careful to note exactly what post and even sentences I am referring to when I ask you to explain your comments. But all I get from you is vague and nebulous references to things you have already said. Come on Jason, what specifically are you referring to by the above comment? Give me a post number at a minimum. But hey, once again I’ll take a swag at trying to figure out what you are referring to. You had the “cool little arrows” of post #17. Was this what you are referring to? I answered you here in #36. Maybe it was in your post #38 you are referring to? But then I answered you in #50 showing that your final statement did not flow from your penultimate one. I’ve gone into great detail to show from the text of Gal 6 that the causal connection between what WE do and what GOD does with what we do is not a topic this passage considers. And this does not answer you in any way? And should I continue to play that what-is-Jason-referring-to-game or would you like to tell me where you have so clearly defined a position of yours that I have ignored?
And should I just stop saying that we agree that the faith which are justified by is one that works through love? I guess that this just does not have any resonance with you?
I am trying to show that the “agape paradigm” has more explanatory value than the imputation one. You have disagreed with me, but haven’t attempted to provide an alternative (beyond merely restating your position over and over again).
As I said previously, the only thing we have gotten to so far (that is the conversation you and I have had) is that Galatians 6:8 is not necessarily speaking to the means by which God uses to justify us – It’s just not envisioned by what precedes the text (again, read the text immediately preceding the verse). Is there anything more that I have suggested? I was not trying to argue for an imputation paradigm at this point.
On Matt 12:37, Jesus is speaking of what characterizes a “good tree” and a “bad tree.” A good tree is characterized by good fruit and a bad tree is characterized by bad fruit. So our works, in this case what we have spoken, will show us to be of the good tree type or bad tree type. Our words justify us in that they demonstrate that we are one type or another. Is there anything more to be made of the verse given the context? So what do you make of the term “justify” here? I’m guessing that you want to connect it with a certain concept, but I will let you comment.
So if I am to defend an imputation paradigm I would like to suggest another passage to discuss – Phil 3:1-11, particularly verse 9. Do we get the picture from this passage (particularly verse 9) that the righteousness we have is infused in us, or does it come from another and thus is from outside of us?
Jason Loh said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Dear Susan (re #295),
Excuse me, but just out of curiosity have you read the Lutheran Reformers … on Luther and perhaps even the Book of Concord? I’m not exactly recommending Lutheranism per se (as I’m not even a strict or unconditional subscriptionist the Lutheran that I am) but I’m sure the theological comparisons (if yet to be made) should be rewarding, enriching, enlightening, etc.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Susan (again re: 295),
I meant to respond to you and Jason Loh’s comment reminded me. At CTC there is more moderation of the posts than here. It’s just a different philosophy of how best to let people interact. Please don’t let that be a hindrance to your engaging here. Do you think that Lane’s original post for this thread is less intelligent and less engaging than analogous posts at CTC? If so, why?
If you are moving towards Rome from confessional Protestantism and want to engage in conversation on the important topics that separate Rome and Geneva (or Wittenberg or Canterbury) then you are in a good place here and I would encourage you to stay, listen, and engage even if some of the responses annoy you.
Cheers for now,
Andrew
isaiah. said,
August 23, 2012 at 10:41 pm
TF (355):
More insults again, I see. No matter. I’ll steady on.
A couple corrections: to call it “communicating with dead people” is wrong on a couple points.
1. We are asking the saints for their intercession (which the book of Revelation tells us are offered to God in heaven: see Rev. 8.3-4), just as we would ask a fellow human in the flesh. It is not a seance, we are not calling them back from the dead in order to have to have audible communication with them. So, to say we “pray” to “the dead” is no more correct than saying we “pray” to our this-side-of-heaven brothers and sisters in Christ when ask them to pray for us.
2. While the saints in heaven may be “dead” in the sense that they have experience physical death on earth, they are also alive in Christ. Do you deny this?
If you can show us in the Scriptures where it is expressly commanded that we should not ask the saints in heaven (as opposed to fellow Christians in the flesh) to pray on our behalf to God, then do so. As far as the apostolic tradition is concerned, the prayers of the liturgy demonstrate fairly early on that asking the intercession of the saints (including those of the Blessed Virgin Mary) was a normative practice in Christian worship.
Additionally, you speak of “knowing [our] words reach the statues” and “no good reason to think they reach Mary, etc.” which is fairly inept on another couple points:
1. Statues and icons are what you say they are: wood (or paint or stone, etc.) and we hold no such illusions that they “hear our prayers” as you seem to think they do. For they are just what they are: the material they are made of: not the saint him or herself, nor some lesser god or goddess.
2. My second rebuttal is that if we have no good reason to expect our requests to be heard by those who are with Christ, how much more idiotic to expect this so-called “God of the universe who made all we see” who supposedly “came in the form of a human, suffered death (really? God died?) and rose from the dead (what? first this guy deludes himself and others saying he is the son of God, and then his disciples claim that his body was not simply stolen!),” to be hearing our prayers. If you can give me undeniable proof that even the most hardened materialistic atheist would accept that there is a “God” who “hears our prayers” (all of them at once?!), I’ll cough up proof that the saints in heaven are hearing our prayers.
That is all I have to say right now. Thank you for allowing me to correct your inaccuracies.
In Christ,
ih.
Zrim said,
August 23, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Bryan, if human reason needs the aide of divine revelation then I wonder what you make of Paul’s low opinion of philosophy in relation to the cross:
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
But, on top of the puzzling notion of human infallibility, the more I read you the more it sounds like a Christianity that has decided to meet the world on its own philosophical terms and accommodate the faith to the quests of the logician instead of thwarting the wisdom of the wise by the cross. In other words, it sounds like Paul chooses the cross while you choose glorified logic and the inflated Magisterium.
olivianus said,
August 23, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Zrim,
As a Protestant I think you are misusing that text. Paul is not creating a dialectic between Divine Wisdom and Logic. He is creating a dialectic between non-revealed human philosophy and revealed divine revelation.
Bryan Cross said,
August 23, 2012 at 11:47 pm
Zrim,
A good basic principle in rational dialogue: don’t make a judgment based on “sounds like.” Find out the truth before making a judgment. That’s an application of the golden rule.
The notion that one must choose between the cross on the one hand, and logic or the magisterium on the other, is a false dichotomy.
But if all your subsequent comments are illogical, I’ll infer that you believed that you had to choose between Jesus and logic, and you chose Jesus, and abandoned logic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 23, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Andrew,
Look, everyone has their own way of doing this. Some people (like Bryan) have the ability to remember that they last addressed a question in comment #1276 in a certain thread from back in the ‘90s. I wish I had that kind of mind, but I just don’t. I look at this blog in the morning, and again after my kids are in bed. The comments that are directed to me that I feel need an answer I cut and paste into a Word doc and try to answer it paragraph by paragraph by directly quoting my interlocutor (which often takes me 15 minutes or more per comment). I’m sure you have your own method.
All that to say, I can’t remember exactly where I said what, only that I have made the Gal. 5-6 point a handful of times. If I have a few minutes later I may wade through all the comments, but I can’t promise it. Sorry.
You have not gone into “great detail” about this at all. Here’s what you said:
“Duh yea, nobody is denying causality here. But as folks have pointed out numerous times here, it is the nature of the causality that is at question here. The question is what exactly the cause and the results are. There is a general relationship here – If WE reap something it is because something that WE have sown – that’s clear. But what does this have to do with what GOD does with what WE sow? Your statements connecting what we reap and what we sow just underlines something basic to Reformed theology. And isn’t that exactly what Gal. 6:8 and it’s immediate text getting at? Or does Gal. 6:8 refer to something that GOD does with what WE sow?”
In no universe is that “great detail.” What you do there is state what you think the issue is, assert that there’s a “general relationship” between sowing and reaping, ask what this has to do with what God does with what we sow, and then ask a couple more questions. That’s not an argument or a positive attempt at exegeting the text, let alone addressing the progression I have argued for in almost every single comment to you.
And as I said when I responded to the above paragraph, the text is about OUR sowing and OUR reaping. If we sow to the Spirit, we will reap eternal life. Our sowing to the Spirit is only possible because of the fruit of the Spirit in our lives (which is love, which fulfills the law, which is ahy Paul can say that we are justified by faith working through love).
Not as long as we are looking through different lenses and bringing differing assumptions to the text. Both of us looking at a verse and agreeing with it is easy. Comparing paradigms is hard (as our exchange demonstrates).
We have “gotten to” you asserting that, but you haven’t done anything with my argument except disagree with it a bunch of times. You should do the work to show me where I am going wrong, and why the connection I am drawing is illegitimate.
I am just curious if you affirm a final justification, and if so, whether it is on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ or not. And if yes, do you understand Jesus to be using “justified” in some other sense than a soteriological one, and if so, why?
Because for a Catholic, the idea that there is a final justification in which our Spirit-wrought works play a role, is pretty much exactly what Jesus seems to be saying in that passage.
Jeff and I have discussed this very passage at length here. The righteousness we have, according to the Catholic, is not “my own, based on the law [of Moses],” but rather is a righteousness that comes from God through Christ. It doesn’t remain outside me or simply cover me the way snow covered Luther’s dunghill, but I am not sure Paul in that passage gets into too much detail about this here. He does directly connect our union with Christ and our possession of this righteousness (“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”), which fits perfectly with what I am arguing for all along.
Do you see something in this text that necessitates imputation and with which you think I must disagree, and if so, what?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 24, 2012 at 12:19 am
Andrew,
I laid out (in varying levels of detail) Paul’s progression in Gal. 5-6 in comments 17, 38, and 248 of this thread, and in #s 23, 26, and 32 of the agape/list thread (most if not all of which were addressed to you specifically).
Jason Loh said,
August 24, 2012 at 12:29 am
“It doesn’t remain outside me or simply cover me the way snow covered Luther’s dunghill, but I am not sure Paul in that passage gets into too much detail about this here. He does directly connect our union with Christ and our possession of this righteousness (“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”), which fits perfectly with what I am arguing for all along.”
Yes, but possession (“having”) does not necessarily imply property (“owning”). Maybe this is why Paul employed the Spirit-debt imagery in e.g. Ephesians except that – consistent with the having/ but not owning undestanding – the debtor (Christian) gets be “credited” whilst the”creditor” assumes the role of a “debtor” — what Luther liked to call (again in consonance with the Chalcedonian Definition), the “communicatio idiomatum”) (except that the transfer of attributes aen’t really verbal predicates but real “inherent” properties).
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 1:58 am
Jason, I’m ready to dive into Galatians. I’d like to begin with some observations before hitting ch. 5 – 6, and after we get to some kind of understanding (plus or minus actual agreement!), I’ll tackle “faith working through love.” Does that work?
Problem
I understand the Galatian problem to be identical to the Judaizing problem of Acts 15.1, 4. Specifically, the Galatians appear to be listening to the teaching that “You must be circumcised and obey the Law of Moses to be saved.
In Acts 15, the joint Paul-Petrine-council solution was to affirm that, no, God cleanses hearts through faith (Acts 15.9). Reaching back to Peter’s experience in Acts 10, we see that Cornelius heard, believed, received the Spirit, and was subsequently baptized.
Judaizing understanding of justification
I understand the Judaizers to be teaching what is fashionably called “covenantal nomism”: We come into the covenant by circumcision; we stay in the covenant by law-keeping.
By circumcision, we become sons of Abraham, and sons of Abraham are also sons of God.
“Under the Law” Paul uses the phrase “under the Law” frequently in Galatians. By it, he seems to mean that one who is under the Law is obligated to keep the entire Law (Gal 5.3) and liable to a curse for disobedience to its requirements (Gal 3.10).
Being “under the Law” can happen by choice. The Galatians who listened to the Judaizers desired to place themselves under the Law (4.21, and 5.4 seems to refer also to this).
But being “under the Law” was also a part of God’s redemptive plan. The Jews between Moses and Christ were “under the Law” as a tutor (4.1 – 5). And Christ Himself was born under the Law (4.4) so that He might take the curse of the Law on our behalf (3.13).
So it is important to note that being “under the Law” for Paul does not refer to a particular attitude towards the Law (“I will be justified by my works”), but rather to a legal relationship to the Law: To be obligated to its terms and subject to a curse upon disobedience.
To be sure, attempting to be justified by works brings one under the Law, but being under the Law could happen in other ways.
Justification By Faith
The Pauline understanding of justification is that those who believe are made sons of God by being clothed with Christ. Faith is the instrument through which this happens (2.16-17, 3.7-9, 3.14, 3.22-29, etc.).
Further, those who made sons of God by faith are also made children of Abraham (3.29), which makes circumcision superfluous.
—
I’m hoping that these observations could be agreed to by Catholics and Protestants alike. However, I can foresee a conflict.
I don’t see any room here for “faith brings us to the church, and baptism is the instrument of justification.” I will indeed talk about 3.27 later, but for now, it seems very clear that faith justifies by itself — as indeed Cornelius experienced.
dgh said,
August 24, 2012 at 6:00 am
Jason, you say you don’t have a mind like Bryan’s. Hold that thought.
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 8:44 am
Bryan, my point wasn’t about dichotomizing faith and logic. It was about accommodating logic to faith. It seems to me there’s quite a difference. And what I take away from your response is that you don’t really see any possibility that logic has its great, even fatal limitations in the bigger picture of God’s redemptive project through the cross, and so accommodating logic to faith is folly. That seems to be Paul’s point, and it seems you disagree with him.
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 8:59 am
Zrim,
See that word ‘so.’ That’s a logical operator.
If using logic means “accommodating logic to faith,” and is folly, then what you say is “folly,” because you are using logic. But if using logic does not necessarily mean “accommodating logic to faith,” and is not necessarily folly, then my use of logic does not necessarily reduce my position to “folly.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 9:04 am
Bryan,
Sure. But it is like in the science/religion (tirate?) that went on before this blog was all about Pope and stuff.
This blog could use your logical mind, in other areas. Or are you just out here to sheep steal?
Regards,
Andrew
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 9:18 am
Bryan, see, I told you I wasn’t dichotomizing faith and logic. But you’re the exegetical prize-winner, and I have yet to see you deal with Paul. So far you’re only exegeting me. So what about Paul and all that cross-versus-worldly-wisdom stuff?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:12 am
Jason, a question for you: Do you, or do you not, agree with Augustine’s Treatise on Rebuke and Grace?
In particular, what I have in mind is this:
Such as these were they who were signified to Timothy, where, when it had been said that Hymenæus and Philetus had subverted the faith of some, it is presently added, “Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord has known them that are His.” The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at
all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them.
But they who are not to persevere, and who shall so fall away from Christian faith and conduct that the end of this life shall find them in that case, beyond all doubt are not to be reckoned in the number of these, even in that season wherein they are living well and piously. — Augustine, Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 16.
Augustine seems here to posit an ontological difference between the elect who are given a grace that includes perseverance, and the non-elect who are not given that grace.
He further states that all who in fact have the faith that works through love will persevere to the end.
Do you agree with him?
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:28 am
Zrim,
The wisdom of this world, of which St. Paul speaks, is not logic, or math, or carpentry or dentistry or farming or any such thing. He is referring to the speculation of men regarding things beyond their understanding, a form of speculation manifested in various philosophers (e.g. Stoics). According to the results of such speculation, it is impossible for God to become man, or for God to suffer and die on a cross. And by such ‘wisdom’ (which is not wisdom at all) the message of the cross of Christ is foolishness.
What would be utter folly (and one more indication of the need for the magisterium) is taking this passage as a green light to toss logic in the trash, and commit any sort of logical fallacy because of a mistaken notion that logic is “worldly wisdom” that one sets aside for the sake of attaining Christ and His cross. Hating logic is next to hating the Logos, because logic articulates rules by which one attains truth and avoids error. And one cannot hate the truth and love the Truth. Those who despise logic fall into error immediately, even in their attempt to interpret Scripture. Scripture is not an alternative to logic, because one cannot understand Scripture without making use of logic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:44 am
Bryan (#267): Thanks for pointing me to Augstine. It’s been some years since I have read “On Grace and Free Will.”
You write, The Catholic paradigm distinguishes between guilt (culpa) and punishment (poena). (St. Augustine makes this distinction in De Libero Arbitrio.) The removal of culpa is not the same thing as the removal of poena, even though they take place at the very same instant.
Now here’s the point that I’ve been pushing towards.
You have alleged two different paradigms.
The agape paradigm holds that we are made righteous, period, by the infusion of agape, without any reference to keeping a list of laws.
The Catholic paradigm holds, by contrast, that we are made ontologically righteous by infusion, but we are still legally liable for our transgressions. In the eyes of God’s law, we are not righteous — and therefore able to behold the beatific vision — until poena is satisfied. Augustine calls our failures to keep the list our “evil merits.”
And he furthermore explains our righteousness as agape that allows us to keep the Law, which was the same explanation I was giving above.
The agape paradigm is not the same as the Catholic paradigm. It truncates the role of the Law and is therefore left with the problem I mentioned above: God must justify the righteous.
This point goes hand-in-hand with the point I made on the other thread:
The list-keeping paradigm is not the same as the Protestant paradigm.
Rather, Protestants believe (as explained before) that being righteous is a matter of having love for God and neighbor, out of which flows obedience to the Law. This is identical to Augustine’s paradigm, at least as far as the definition of righteousness goes.
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:54 am
Bryan, yes, hating and discarding a perfectly good tool would be utter folly. But I hope you don’t really think that such hatred is the point. The point is that faith is not the sum of its logical parts anymore than a person is the sum of his physical parts, and to think so is the kind of utter folly Paul seems to have in mind. I don’t know how you get the former kind of folly from the text. Further, the plain message of Paul seems to be to preach Christ and him crucified for the reconciliation of God to sinners (i.e. the cross), and to know nothing else. That is hardly a point that ever comes through in anything I’ve seen you write. One of JJS’s points has been to be able to repeat whatever is in Scripture, no matter how much it may irritate particularly held doctrines (e.g. for a Prot with his Creator/creature distinction to say with Peter that we participate in the divine nature).
And so I wonder if you can say with Paul that philosophy, just like any worldly endeavor by its very provisional nature, is utter folly in comparison with the cross of Christ. If so, then maybe you can see how telling someone that logic will hem him in from all manner of falsehood seems silly compared to how Jesus’ cross saves us from the wrath of God.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:57 am
BC:
You are pursuing a PhD in philosophy. Kudos! I love philosophy. Some time, I need to share with you my thoughts on Tillich, Bultmann, Barth, etc etc. I think you probably have a very big brain.
Yeah, sure, we need logic. But amazingly, my three year old, as illogical as can be, at times (maybe I see myself in my children at times?) still seems to grasp something when she utters a prayer and I explain to her things about baby Jesus.
It’s an amazing thing to behold the God that is condescending to us.
Sorry about the sheep stealing accusation, above. But the point is, I don’t get all you bloggers and commenters. Either you are using these forums to write a book (Stellman?) or you are working on your PhD (you?)
So I get it – keep going. Just know, some of things that I read out here, put out, by many of you, have really caused me theological harm, in the past. It makes me really sad to see the church reduced to these forums.
It’s not GB at fault, per se. But clearly the blog post (ironically) by Michael Kruger, about blogging, requires a good read by everyone (see his blog, “Canon Fodder”). The internet has a way of exacerbating our sin problems.
I for one, know this personally.
Now, resume your work, of calling the church universal under one banner, how ever you see fit. For us in the OPC, our committee is tirelessly working away.
But for you bloggers, if that works for you, hey, whatever floats your boat.
I wonder what the next topic at GB will be…
peace,
ab
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:01 am
Zrim,
Your outhouse blog should be my next stop…I’ve been meaning to make my way to the latrine ;-)
“just like any worldly endeavor by its very provisional nature, is utter folly in comparison with the cross of Christ.”
That’s well put. In the science/religion debate, we were talking along the lines of “special revelation over general revelation.” I should share some e-mails with you, to catch you up to speed, on that, if you are interested.
Well, then again, I’ve got things to attend to in my immediate circles.
But it’s fun finding another blog, Zrim! Boy, you internet people, very active, and fast typers…
Peace,
AB
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:07 am
Jeff, (re: #378)
Your mistake here is adding the word “period.” The description I provided of the agape paradigm focused only on intrinsic righteousness, not on merits or debts due to actions. But there is no “period” in the agape paradigm. The agape paradigm, as I described it, is part of the broader Catholic paradigm.
Here you equivocate on the word ‘justify,’ by conflating the two distinct senses into one. To justify in the sense of making intrinsically righteous, by infusing agape, is not the same as ‘justify’ in the sense of canceling debt. When you distinguish the concepts, then there is no “problem.” There is only a ‘problem’ if you conflate the two concepts, and thus make it seem that the Catholic position entails that God must make righteous those who are in that same sense already righteous. And that would be a straw man of the Catholic position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:28 am
Zrim (re: #379)
I didn’t say anything about faith being or not being “the sum of its logical parts.”
I don’t see the two [logic and the cross] as mutually exclusive, because nature and grace are not at war. The same God who made nature is the same God who redeems us through the cross. The same God who made human reason, is the same God who revealed the faith. Grace does not make nature silly or foolish. Grace perfects and elevates nature. Hence to despise nature is to lose grace, because grace comes to us through nature, through God becoming man. Losing grace is the inevitable result of the Marcionite heresy. We come to Christ through His human nature. We come to faith through reason. We receive grace through material sacraments. And to reject logic is to lose sacred theology, and to lose the faith. One can’t have the Redeemer while rejecting the Creator.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
michael said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:38 am
Bryan:
“Grace perfects and elevates nature.”
No Bryan, Grace kills our human nature so Christ’s Divine Nature can come alive within us and lead us into His Life both here on earth now before we pass and then after we pass, we pass into the next Life as Romans 5:16-18 teach us.
It’s His equitable deed that saves. I, dead in trespasses and sins, am made alive with Christ by the work of the Our Heavenly Father, conjoined to Him now in this life and though I am guilty in this life I am declared the Righteousness of God, an imputation of His Righteousness since mine is dead righteousness, through His Grace and His Faith from Him. It is His Grace I receive. It is His Faith I receive. It is His Righteousness that makes it possible for me to have communion with Him hence I am receiving the gift of Righteousness which in daily life is the gift of Eternal Life lived.
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:56 am
Michael, (re: #384)
If grace destroys human nature, then there is no “us” remaining, because there is no human where there is no human nature. So in that case there is only Christ’s “Divine Nature.” That’s the Eutychian conception of the incarnation, and entails the ‘pantheistic’ notion of heaven.
The problem, of course, is that by ‘human nature’ you mean ‘sinful nature.’ But by ‘human nature’ I mean the essence of human. If human nature (in the sense of the essence of human) were sinful, then Christ could not have become man, without also having a sinful nature, and needing a Savior. But grace does not kill our ‘human nature’ in the sense of removing or destroying our essential humanity. Grace perfects and elevates our human nature in that sense of the term.
So many (but not all) objections could be removed from the table immediately, if we understood each other’s paradigms, and didn’t assume that all concepts and terms in other’s paradigms must mean exactly what they mean in our own.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 12:54 pm
Jeff (re #376),
There is a difference between (1) “all who will persevere to the end have faith that works by love” and (2) “all who in fact have the faith that works through love will persevere to the end.” In this passage, St. Augustine affirms the former but not the latter.
Those who finally fall away “are not to be reckoned in the number of these,” meaning the elect. In fact, what there persons are said to fall away from is “Christian faith and conduct.”
I agree that an ontological difference between the elect and the non-elect who have received baptism is that the former are given the grace of final perseverance, while the latter are not.
Andrew
michael said,
August 24, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Bryan
thanks for the interaction between us.
There are more scholarly minds in here that can do a better job of it than I.
However, I do agree that we are operating on different foundations and from different paradigms.
Yours is based in human nature and the traditions men have taught over the years about communion with God of a religious order.
Mine is based on a solid eternal Everpresent Rock (the gift of Eternal Life). And, of course, there are traditions that follow out of communion with God and Christ and the Word of Their Grace that grow out of it based on local nuance throughout written history.
I would say in my opinion you don’t understand the “nature” or rather the “divine nature” of Grace as it is made alive within your natural man or your own personal human nature given to you from your parents.
Over at Triablogue I responded to John Bugay’s new post put up this morning and focused my comments somewhat based on you with my remarks over there. My point there I will make here and hopefully the Spirit will give you ears to “hear” it?
The Holy Spirit is sent to open the ears and eyes of the deaf and blind.
When our ears are spiritually opened by the Holy Spirit and not some fallen spirit of wickedness we hear differently the Divine things of God than with natural hearing. When our eyes are opened we see or understand differently the Divine things of God God gives His children to see and understand.
In John 16 Jesus, by the Spirit, speaks about sending the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin.
What it seems to me you are resisting and because of why I do not as yet know or understand, but others in here of the Reformed Faith probably do, is being convicted of being totally naturally humanly depraved and so tainted with Adam’s sinful nature not one good thing of you is acceptable to God, not one good thing?!! The distinction you are making is your works add to God’s imputation of Righteousness which allows you to justify within yourself and argue for an infusion of God’s love and grace and peace all the while my position and I believe all True Believers position is one of starting with being dead in a sinful nature without committing one sin, yet still dead dead, dead, first born dead and then by living my natural life proving the nature of Adam’s transgression by accepting my own sinful natural desires as normal yet sinful so I am a total natural life of sinning proving there is no good thing in me even my blameless moral character is considered sinful to God “naturally”.
The exercise here is an exercise from one of two lifestyles, yours as a Romanist calling people to communion with the RCC’s faith and practices and mine as a Christian in the truest sense of being made alive spiritually because Christ is now dwelling in me because God has conjoined me to Christ in spite of being dead in my own trespasses and sins..
You don’t want to be convicted of your sin nature because you see some good meritorious nature in yourself that you believe and are convinced of is acceptable to God and useful to God as He does His work of evangelism calling out of darkness those sitting in it.
I suggest you set aside your great learning and just go off and spend time in the Word of God from Genesis to the Revelation to John, with nothing else to read, no history books, or teachings, just you and God and His Word of Grace. Take that in all by itself into your spirit and ponder it and have communion with God basis it.
I leave you with a passage from Acts as the import for why I suggest this:
Act 20:32 And now I commend you to God and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up and to give you the inheritance among all those who are sanctified.
Jason Loh said,
August 24, 2012 at 1:02 pm
“I understand the Judaizers to be teaching what is fashionably called “covenantal nomism”: We come into the covenant by circumcision; we stay in the covenant by law-keeping.
By circumcision, we become sons of Abraham, and sons of Abraham are also sons of God.”
Jeff (re #370), you have highlighted a very important point here. I believe it fits in well with the Pauline “proposition” that is under consideration here: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love” (Gal 5:6).
1. Circumcision counts for nothing in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the concept of initial and final justification in the OT falls apart.
2. Circumcision expresses obedience to the Law (or as Paul expressed it in verse 1 – “bondage” to the Law). If circumcision counts for nothing in Jesus Christ, then obedience to the Law counts for nothing in Jesus Christ. This is so “For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.” To reiterate, circumcision “represented” the circumcised’s bondage to the Law.
3. Circumcision is (sharply) contrasted with faith (which is expressed as the Pauline formula of “faith working through/ by love”). The contrast takes place in Jesus Christ for whom circumcision counts for nothing but FWTL. Hence, obedience to the Law and Jesus Christ do not “mix.” Only faith and Jesus Christ go together. Since faith and Jesus Christ have the Gospel in common, the broader Pauline proposition of Gal 5:6 is consonant with a hermeneutic employing the Law-Gospel distinction.
4. But is FWTL really compatible with the Roman Catholic paradigm of infused theological virtues? In other words, is the contrast between circumcision versus “faith alone” OR circumcision versus “faith formed by love”? A natural reading would make it clear that Paul did not say faith working *with* love or faith *and* love working together but faith working *through/ by* love.
5. The difference in the preposition makes all the difference (of whether the Pauline formula is more compatible with the Roman Catholic or Protestant paradigm). Faith working through/ by love does not necessarily imply that faith and love are two “discrete” (or distinctive) virtues that need each other to complement each other. Through/ by implies “causation” — whereas and/ with implies “coordination” or “conjunction.” The two represents different paradigms. Faith causes love and not the other way round.
6. FWTL means that it is faith that *does* the “working” not love. Faith would be “synonymous” with the doer (the person that does the work). Love would then be synonymous with doing, i.e. the act/ action (work) itself. Faith is the noun, love is the verb. Faith is the tree, love is the fruit.
7. The Pauline formula FWTL comports with the patristic ordo theologiae of person-energies- essence as applied in the context of the law-Gospel distinction. “Faith” as person is the New Adam which in turn implies the simul (simultaneously saint and sinner) – distinction but never separation on this side of the eschaton; the Old Adam is implied in “working” (as in human energies) because a) person is bound to sinful nature (nature controls person so that “it” becomes the person – communicatio idiomatum) and b) faith as the New Adam (“transcendental I”) is beyond experience – from the “yet to come” but really and truly hidden “in, with, under” the “here and now” of the Old Adam (“empirical I”). And finally “love” refers to the human energies performed in, with and under the Old Adam but flowing from the New Adam, that having its source in faith. And since “all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,” the Pauline “restatement” of the use of the Law means that good works are for the sake for the neighbour (coram mundo), not God for Whom faith alone justifies.
Jason Loh said,
August 24, 2012 at 1:34 pm
“The problem, of course, is that by ‘human nature’ you mean ‘sinful nature.’ But by ‘human nature’ I mean the essence of human. If human nature (in the sense of the essence of human) were sinful, then Christ could not have become man, without also having a sinful nature, and needing a Savior.”
Dear Bryan (re#385),
Yes, as confessional Protestants, we confess that the “human essence is sinful” not as a “philosophical deduction” but confession of *faith.* It cannot be neither proved empirically nor by human logic but total depravity/ bondage of the will is simply the theological corollary or concomittant of justification by faith. Just as we are righteous by faith, we are one and the same time sinful by faith — with specific reference to the universal curse of Original Sin in which Actual Sins are but simply the “context-specific” and individual variation thereof.
Thus, in confessing that human nature is sinful, Protestants are simply confessing the theological truth of Original Sin. However, nature is never considered abstractly apart from the person so that being, existence, that which is “concrete” and “real” is synonymous with the person,not nature. The nature can only be known in the acts or operations or energies. In other words, Original Sin whilst communicated via human nature has its “seat’ in the person. It is the person who is sinful and commits sins, not nature. Thus, Our Lord and Saviour was truly without Original Sin because Original Sin did not pass to Him as the only-virginally conceived One. If I’m not wrong, the patristic consensus (at least in western catholicism) is that Original Sin is transmitted by way of physical propagation which requires two parents.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Andrew (#386): Hi. What Augustine’s words say is your option (2).
The faith of these, which worketh by love, either actually does not fail at all, or, if there are any whose faith fails, it is restored before their life is ended, and the iniquity which had intervened is done away, and perseverance even to the end is allotted to them.
IF faith-working-by-love, THEN
Does not fail OR is restored.
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Jason, (re: #389)
If the human essence is sinful, and Jesus did not have sin (actual or original), then Jesus was not human, and neither were Adam and Eve before the Fall (they changed species at the moment they sinned — for a few minutes, from the time Eve sinned until the time Adam sinned, Eve was a human married to a member of another species), and neither are all the saints in heaven, because they have no sin.
But, then unless Jesus became human, by taking on human nature, humans cannot be redeemed, for, as St. Gregory of Nazianzus said of the incarnation, “What is not assumed, is not redeemed.” So there will be no saints in heaven, and we’re all still dead in sins. Eat, drink, and be merry and all that.
This notion that Christ did not take on human nature, is contrary to Chalcedon, according to which Christ assumed “human nature,” not the nature of some other species.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Jeff, (#390)
Andrew is correct. That the faith of the elect works by love and either does not fail or is restored, does not entail that the faith in those who do not persevere does not also work by love.
Hence when you say in #376 “He further states that all who in fact have the faith that works through love will persevere to the end” you misrepresent St. Augustine’s position, because he does not say that.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:11 pm
Andrew, on further reflection, I see what you’re saying: The “these” grammatically refers to the elect.
And you are saying, further, that the difference between them is the grace of perseverance.
OK.
But go back a couple of chapters. He says,
And, consequently, both those who have not heard the gospel, and those who, having heard it and been changed by it for the better, have not received perseverance, and those who, having heard the gospel, have refused to come to Christ, that is, to believe on Him, since He Himself says, “No man cometh unto me, except it were given him of my Father,”
Those who have not received perseverance have refused to come to Christ, refused to believe on him.
At this moment, I understand Augustine to be saying that those w/o perseverance do not have initial faith to begin with.
Do you have a different take?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:15 pm
Andrew, more evidence of what I’m saying: For the former, while
they live piously, are called children of God; but because they will live wickedly, and die in that impiety, the foreknowledge of God does not call them God’s children. For they are children of God whom as yet we have not, and God has already, of whom the Evangelist John says, “that Jesus should die for that nation, and not for that nation only, but that also
He should gather together in one the children of God which were scattered abroad;” and this certainly they were to become by believing, through the preaching of the gospel. And yet before this had happened they had already been enrolled as sons of God with unchangeable
stedfastness in the memorial of their Father. And, again, there are some who are called by us children of God on account of grace received even in temporal things, yet are not so called by God; of whom the same John says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us, because if they had been of us they would, no doubt, have continued with
us.” He does not say, “They went out from us, but because they did not abide with us they are no longer now of us;” but he says, “They went out from us, but they were not of
us,”— (Rebuke, ch. 20)
This sounds pretty darn Calvinistic: There are some who are children of God in the eyes of men, but not in the eyes of God; and it is all according to election.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Jeff,
Well as you guessed, I am not completely satisfied with this, especially given all the NT has to say about the effectiveness of baptism. For example, the same Paul who teaches justification by faith not only says in 3:27 that “as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ,” but was himself told by Ananias, “Rise, brother Saul, be baptized and wash away your sins.”
And since you brought up Cornelius, and since we’re warning each other about the stuff we’ll be talking about later, I will probably try to make some kind of case for Cornelius being precisely the kind of Gentile that Paul had in mind in Rom. 2: his conversion demonstrated the “no partiality” theory cited in Acts 10 and Rom. 2; his obedience to the law (as he had it) rendered his uncircumcision as circumcision; he was a Jew not outwardly by the letter, but inwardly by the Spirit and circumcision of the heart.
But that said, please proceed….
johnbugay said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Jason Loh 389 and Bryan 391:
Michael Horton, in his “Covenant and Salvation”, works at length to make the [thoroughly Protestant] case for an ontology of salvation in which man is not changed, from Adam and Eve before the fall, who were created “very good” and “in the image of God” — “there is no donum superadditum to lose; and thus “infusion” is not required, and “glorification” is not “deification” — that is, man is “restored” legally. There is no ontological change posited or required (because such a thing is foreign to Scripture, save for the possibility that 2 Peter 1:4 and “partaking” of the divine nature, which has a number of different meanings). The fall is a legal one; justification is forensic, and glorification is man restored to fellowship with God.
The Roman scheme of salvation, however, posits an unbiblical “donum superadditum“, which is lost in the fall; the “infusion” of grace, then, is something like an “ontological substance” that then manifests itself through “increasing justification” and finally, an eschatological man with some sort of “donum superadditum” above and beyond his “glorified” nature.
This positing of the “donum superadditum” is, in my opinion, an elephant in this room, and, given that it is hinted at but not discussed, it is one major problem in this whole discussion.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:23 pm
Jason Loh. In general, good work.
In regard to Bryan’s #391, I would agree with him (!). Being sinful is not of the essence of being human, but is a defection in humanity.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Jeff,
No, option (2), which is a quote of your previous construction of what St. Augustine says, is not what he actually says. The antecedent of St. Augustine’s conditional argument is not “all those who have been given the gift of faith working through love” but “all those who are known by the Lord as his” [i.e. the elect]. Thus, the argument is, “If one is elect, then he will persevere in faith to the end.” The argument is not, “If one has faith, then he will persevere in faith to the end.” In fact, as I said in my previous response to you, the second paragraph of the material quoted in #376 indicates that there are indeed persons who finally fall away from “Christian faith and conduct.” So not only do you misconstrue St. Augustine’s argument in the first paragraph, you misconstrue it in such a way as to deny what he says in the second paragraph.
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:35 pm
Bryan, Jason, and Andrew, with regard to Rebuke, I will retract my point for now. Chap. 18 seems to indicate that some — the non-elect — receive faith, hope, love; while Chap. 20 seems to indicate that God never receives as His children the non-elect.
So there’s something more complicated going on than I was allowing for. However, there’s also something more complicated going on than a simple gift of perseverance. Other things seem to accompany this gift, such as the right to be a child of God in God’s eyes.
So I retract for now and will polish up the thoughts. Thanks for your helpful criticism.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:38 pm
Jeff,
I just saw your two further responses (#393-94).
The quote in #393 appears to be the conclusion of an argument (“consequently”), but I don’t see the argument. As the quoted passage stands, St. Augustine seems to be referring to two distinct groups of non-elect people, those who believe and those who do not believe.
The quote in #394 again appears to be distinguishing the elect from the non-elect. The distinction is not, so far as I can tell, between those who have faith and the non-elect.
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:45 pm
Jeff (re #399),
I keep lagging behind. St. Augustine is indeed a deep study, and I am no master. I have read very little of his writings, and am simply trying to discern what is actually entailed by the portions that you have quoted. For whatever reason, I have been much more inclined to read and ponder the Cappadocian fathers than any of the Latin fathers from the Golden Age of patristic literature.
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:53 pm
Jason S. -395,
wrote: Well as you guessed, I am not completely satisfied with this, especially given all the NT has to say about the effectiveness of baptism. For example, the same Paul who teaches justification by faith not only says in 3:27 that “as many of you as were baptized have put on Christ,” but was himself told by Ananias, “Rise, brother Saul, be baptized and wash away your sins.”
Well, that baptism wasn’t done in a vacuum. Christ had bestowed forgiveness on Paul. He believed and was baptized. What makes the baptism efficacious for the cleansing of sin? The outward act or the instrument of faith in Christ crucified gifted by God to the believer, due to His sovereign grace?
Sing and seal… I know you know the deal (just wanted to a little Jesse Jackson rhyme-thing), but it explains the working of election, faith, and baptism unto the washing away of sin.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:56 pm
Yes, Jack, but it was Jeff, not me, that seemed to be placing a divider between faith and baptism.
PS – Jibbity jibbity, rat-a-tat-tat!
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:57 pm
typos:
*sign* and seal
Oh, for an edit function, or a refresher course in typing…
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 2:58 pm
Jason,
Then you agree with what I wrote?
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 3:02 pm
Jeff wrote; I don’t see any room here for “faith brings us to the church, and baptism is the instrument of justification.” I will indeed talk about 3.27 later, but for now, it seems very clear that faith justifies by itself — as indeed Cornelius experienced.
I think above what I wrote is consistent with Jeff’s comments.
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:09 pm
Bryan, when you say “we come to faith through reason” it sounds an awful lot like saying Aristotle, as opposed to John the Baptizer, was the forerunner to Christ. But faith come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, a text I still find curiously absent in all of your reasoning. And so, to the extent that you represent it, this only continues to affirm just how unduly dependent Catholicism seems to be on philosophy as opposed to the Bible.
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:10 pm
John B., bingo. It is not the essence of human nature that is sinful but rather its condition. Where are these Prots getting the idea that creation is essentially sinful? I’ll see your Horton and raise some RSC (apologies for the length):
“Among the mainstream Protestants (Reformed and Lutheran) there was a general consensus against the medieval doctrine of the donum superadditum (superadded gift) i.e., that man was created with a certain deficiency in grace which was remedied before the fall with a “superadded gift” of grace. According to most medieval theologians, this “superadded gift” was lost in the fall. In such a scheme, the fall becomes not a primarily a violation of God’s law but a fall from grace. They held this doctrine because they assumed the existence of a sort of chain of being between God and humanity with God at the top and us at the bottom. They conceived of the fundamental human problem not as a legal problem but as a lack of being or even a lack of divinity. Thomas Aquinas spoke of salvation as “divinization” and the Roman Church today (Catechism, 1994) teaches that God and humans both participate in “being.” The “chain of being” lives on in Roman theology. In the medieval (and Roman) view, human beings, by virtue of being human and finite, are in need of this grace. Hence Aquinas taught the “grace perfects nature.”
Scripture, however, knows nothing of such a “chain of being” or of the sort of “grace” before the fall. The medieval view makes sin an ontological or metaphysical (i.e., our ‘being’ or creation) problem rather than a moral-legal problem. [See s.v. donum super additum, Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985).] In contrast, the Belgic affirmed the paradox of man’s high state at creation, his free will and his mutability (posse peccare, posse non peccare), which made the fall a possibility.
That’s how I have always understood the differences, which seem to owe to the medieval doctrine of the donum superadditum (superadded gift) i.e., that man was created with a certain deficiency in grace which was remedied before the fall with a “superadded gift” of grace. My understanding is that according to most medieval theologians, this “superadded gift” was lost in the fall, such that the fall becomes not a primarily a violtion of God’s law but a fall from grace; and they held this doctrine because they assumed the existence of a sort of chain of being between God and humanity with God at the top and us at the bottom. They conceived of the fundamental human problem not as a legal problem but as a lack of being or even a lack of divinity. Thomas Aquinas spoke of salvation as “divinization” and the RCC today teaches that God and humans both participate in “being.” Hence Aquinas taught the “grace perfects nature.” The telos of man seems to be the beatific vision moreso than being reconciled to God.
But the Protestant view (Reformed and Lutheran) says that Scripture knows nothing of such a “chain of being” or of the sort of “grace” before the fall. The medieval view makes sin an ontological or metaphysical (i.e., our ‘being’ or creation) problem rather than a moral-legal problem. The confessional Protestant view is that grace renews nature, that the latter was created good (and was, therefore, not defective) and has been corrupted or is put to corrupt use by virtue of sin. All human faculties (e.g., the intellect, the will, and the affections) are radically corrupted by sin. Because of the fall, by inclination, we think wrongly, we choose wrongly, and we love wrongly. It is only by grace that we ever come to think, will, or love rightly.”
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:34 pm
Zrim, (re: #407)
Your mode of reasoning is to look at appearances, and then report your opinion about how things appear to you, without determining first whether these appearances are true. And that habit is unhelpful. (see #366)
If you’re still in the “sounds like” or “looks like” or “seems like,” or “it’s almost as if you are saying” epistemic position regarding your interlocutor’s position, then you should ask for confirmation before criticizing.
True, but one must first determine that something is divine revelation; otherwise, one falls into fideism by believing arbitrarily. So reason must be used in order to determine that an alleged divine revelation is truly such. Hence the motives of credibility, which I explain in “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective,” and the comments under that thread.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:47 pm
Bryan,
I know Zrim will aptly respond, but…
you wrote:
But faith come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God,
True, but one must first determine that something is divine revelation; otherwise, one falls into fideism by believing arbitrarily. So reason must be used in order to determine that an alleged divine revelation is truly such. Hence the motives of credibility, which I explain in “Wilson vs. Hitchens: A Catholic Perspective,” and the comments under that thread.
I think this is where a significant difference appears. A Reformed Christian believes that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, not through or by the determination of on’e rational judgment (thought the rational faculty is employed). Rather that the Word of God rightly proclaimed is, in an of itself, the power that creates faith in the one that hears. And when that one believes, it makes sense, but only after faith has been born within. He may not be able to explain everything as to the hows and whys, but he no knows, by faith, that the Word of salvation is not only true but efficacious to him personally. God, in a sense, trumps my personal/rational powers of determination or judgment and sovereignly saves me through His initiative of the Gospel.
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:50 pm
edit correction:
He may not be able to explain everything as to the hows and whys, but he now knows
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Might the peace mentioned in Philippians 4:7, be part of what you mean, jsm?
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Andrew B.,
Yes, and more. That peace is a peace now established between sinful man and his holy God through the mediation of Another. It is mind-boggling that One should gratuitously pay the penalty for my sin and guilt and give me eternal life. As the BJ Thomas song says – it’s more than a feeling. And I don’t just figure it out and then believe. God sovereignly “shuts my mouth” and graciously births His salvation in me through hearing the Gospel proclaimed. It isn’t a rational process per se, but an extra-rational intervention of God’s Word.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. Rom. 1:16
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Yeah, I was looking at Gurnall, Calvin, etc, at this website just now:
http://www.preceptaustin.org/philippians_47.htm
Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 5:23 pm
as for shutting our mouths, job 40:4-5 seems an appropriate reference.
I would advise, though, starting at job 38. remember, readers, you must consider context.
hand over mouth (er…fingers tied up),
andrew
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Amen… also in Romans 3 –
19 Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it speaketh to them that are under the law; that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may be brought under the judgment of God:
20 because by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight; for through the law cometh the knowledge of sin.
21 But now apart from the law a righteousness of God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ unto all them that believe;
The Word preached brings both the judgment of the law and good news of salvation for those that hear and believe. A Divine sovereign action of salvation through the Word made flesh.
Paul Weinhold said,
August 24, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Sean Patrick, (re: #327)
As a Catholic preparing to enter the sacrament of marriage, I wanted to thank you for writing this note. It’s inspiring for me to hear of these small acts of heroism through humble obedience. I respect your courage and your faithfulness to your family. May the body and blood, soul and divinity of our Lord continue to sustain you all.
ad maiorem Dei gloriam,
Paul
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Bryan says;Your mode of reasoning is to look at appearances, and then report your opinion about how things appear to you, without determining first whether these appearances are true. And that habit is unhelpful. (see #366)
Sean says;
Actually Bryan your boy Adler takes about this ‘atmospheric’ understanding of an issue, and recommends it before drilling down to the particular and details. I worry more about those who only engage in pedantic development who don’t trade on the intuitive(what benefit is experience). You’re merely exhibiting your ‘flatness’ of personality and acumen in your bias.
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 7:54 pm
that would be ‘talks’ not takes
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Sean (re #418),
Your claim about Bryan’s “personality and acumen,” besides being offensive, is inaccurate. I have actually spent time with Bryan, in person and in private forums, and can testify from experience that Bryan’s personality is not “flat,” nor is his acumen. It takes a great deal of discipline to hone in on the structure of an argument, in order to determine whether or not one’s interlocutor has successfully demonstrated his point. This is particularly difficult when one’s interlocutors freely indulge in personal insults, over and above sloppy thinking.
What you take as pedantry is actually a most beneficial service, all the more so when it is a service that so few have the training and the discipline to consistently render. There is more than enough “atmosphere” to go around in this and similar forums. Precise evaluation of the merits of arguments, based upon reason rather than prejudice and emotion–not so much. You guys’ response to Bryan’s arguments, both as to their form and content, says a lot about the intellectual state of affairs among Reformed bloggers. And what it says is not flattering.
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Andrew P.,
Come on, Thou dost protest too much…
First of all, Sean’s comment was not a slur, but an observation of how Bryan’s style of debate comes across. It’s termed “affect.”
If you want to win converts, you can’t talk down to them.
And, even if we grant that Sean stepped over the line (which I don’t grant), you, in response, take his comment and paint all the Reformed bloggers?
Chill, my friend.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Trim, my mods, if you must. But Trueman’s essay in the book, ‘minority report’ has validated my M.O. since day one here. Everyone, go find that book by Carl Trueman and read that 5 page essay.
Winkie winkie,
Andrew
Andrew McCallum said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Jason (re: 367),
Been all day driving in the wilderness of South Texas but am home now. So…..
Concerning my response to you on Gal 5/6 you say: That’s not an argument or a positive attempt at exegeting the text,….
For a start I have said considerably more than what you quote. You apparently think I have not answered you. So I’m trying to think how else to explain myself. In #248 (which is a more complete statement of your position than the other two posts you cite from this thread) you say:
Paul, in Gal. 5, is explicitly talking about justification, since he asks, “Tell me, you who want to be justified by the law, do you not hear the law?” He then says, “Circumcision avails nothing.” For what? For justification, obviously. But what does avail for justification? “Circumcision avails nothing, but faith working through love.” OK, so FWTL avails for justification.
You elaborate a little more in the next paragraphs but this seems to be the end of your argument. And I have been trying to draw your argument out, since what you state so far is something we can likely agree on. As I stated in #360 we are justified by a faith that is not dead, but one that is formed by love. But what I think you also believe is that this love (which is a the fulfillment of the law) is that which God uses (along with faith of course) to justify us in His sight. You have alluded to such a conclusion but when you state your argument in places like #248 you don’t say it, at least not explicitly so. In short, you are not carrying your argument out far enough for me to agree or disagree with it yet. So I’m not presenting a counter argument in a way that you hope for because I don’t see your argument clearly laid out, even when you say you are trying to do this, as in #248.
You do hint at what I am trying to get you to say explicitly in #17 (“cool little arrows” diagram). Maybe you could flesh this out in more explicit statements.
Concerning my answer to you on Matt: 12:37:
I am just curious if you affirm a final justification, and if so, whether it is on the basis of the imputed righteousness of Christ or not. And if yes, do you understand Jesus to be using “justified” in some other sense than a soteriological one, and if so, why?
Yes, there is something which we can call final justification – this is what is in mind when we speak of our works justifying our faith. But there is nothing in this passage about the “imputed righteousness of Christ.” I don’t see any evidence from this verse or it’s context to suggest that “justify” is being used to describe the means by which God declares us righteous. The words of the Pharisees condemned them, and the message for us is that our words can either justify or condemn us. That is, they can show us to be either “good trees” or “bad trees.” I don’t think we should try to use “justify” here to mean anything more than what Jesus describes in the previous verses – to demonstrate what is good/bad fruit and good/bad trees.
Concerning Phil. 3:1-11:
Jeff and I have discussed this very passage at length here.
I’ve looked briefly and I cannot find your discussion with Jeff on this passage. Again, I really don’t like to play this searching and guessing game with you. Can you just reference the post and tell me what you think was significant in Jeff and your discussion?
It doesn’t remain outside me or simply cover me the way snow covered Luther’s dunghill, but I am not sure Paul in that passage gets into too much detail about this here. He does directly connect our union with Christ and our possession of this righteousness (“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”), which fits perfectly with what I am arguing for all along.
Yes of course it does not remain outside of ourselves. But again you are not pushing your argument to the point that we disagree – Do our works which flow from this righteousness become partly the means by which God justifies us?
And to your last question, yes, the verse here argues that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us. It’s not our righteousness by which we are found in Christ, but an alien righteousness, that of Christ, which is the basis for Paul’s confidence that he is in Christ. And then twice Paul says that righteousness, which is not his but Christ’s, is apprehended by faith.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Yes,I am arrogant. The essay is, ‘theater of the absurd’
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:10 pm
jsm52 (re #421),
This is what Sean wrote: “You’re merely exhibiting your ‘flatness’ of personality and acumen in your bias.”
This is a claim about Bryan. Note the second person personal pronoun.
Bryan does not “talk down” to you guys. Careful attention to detail for the purpose of evaluating arguments is not talking down.
Finally, I made a claim about the intellectual state of affairs among Reformed bloggers, but should have been more specific: among Reformed bloggers that write and comment on this site. There are exceptions.
Andrew
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Andrew says;. “It takes a great deal of discipline to hone in on the structure of an argument, in order to determine whether or not one’s interlocutor has successfully demonstrated his point.”
Sean says:
That’s why we have computers, math and scientific calculators. It’s inherently disingenuous to a conversation or dialogue amongst human beings to deny the intuitive and insist on the solely analytical. Otherwise the incarnation becomes superfluous. I never argued that the atmospheric was all that was entailed but it’s a wholly worthwhile starting point and valid tact amongst humans.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Lane,
give your mods a break. shut down your blog for a week.
think of the children!
this is out of control,
andrew
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:17 pm
Andrew,
Bryan disparaged Zrim’s intuitive observation or maybe even generous/ecumenical dialogue. Bryan is biased toward his own predilection in his criticism of Zrim. I’m calling him on it. No more no less.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:18 pm
428,
if that’s to me, that’s cool.
dude, everyone who ever posted on gb must read that essay. NOW!!
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Andrew B.,
I was addressing Andrew P. Sorry for the confusion
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:34 pm
This blog needs a vacay! I declare out of order. Presbyterians, how dare we allow such disregard for proper procedure. The motion is before you: shut the blog down for a week. Second?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:41 pm
If this is seriously how you all roll, enjoy your Friday evening. As for me, orthodox Presbyterian, signing off.
Ninja smoke,
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Sean (re #426),
Computers and calculators cannot evaluate arguments. Only rational beings can do that. Therefore, it is not disingenuous, much less inherently so, to approach arguments analytically, i.e., as to whether or not the conclusion follows from the premises. Furthermore, Bryan has not “denied the intuitive.” He has simply taken a different approach to dialogue than those whose comments consist mainly of airing their intuitions. Again, this is a valuable service, especially when intuitions diverge.
When it comes to tact among humans, you do not stand on very high ground. So you might want to watch out for that bit of admonition to come rolling back towards you.
(re #428),
Bryan “disparaged Zrim’s intuitive obervation”? Maybe even his “generous/ecumenical dialogue”? How so (and where)–surely not by pointing out that an individual’s intuitive observations are not conclusive, regarding the truth of the matter being discussed? To distinguish is not to disparage. Also, did Bryan make any offensive claims about Zrim’s personality and acumen? I doubt it. Watch out for that bit about tact.
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:51 pm
Jason (#395):
Children of the promise
And you, brethren, like Isaac, are children of the promise
The justification of the Galatians is not an ongoing action, but is a completed action. This is proved by several lines of evidence.
First (and least), Paul appears to be careful with his verbal aspects. In each instance where δικαιοω is used in Galatians, Paul follows this rule:
Justified by the Law: δικαιοω is present or future (2.16 x2, 3.11, 5.4).
Justified by faith: δικαιοω is aorist (2.16, 2.17, 3.24) or future (3.8).
This suggests that Paul sees being justified by faith as a completed action, in contrast to the futile ongoing process of being justified by the law.
Nevertheless, having read our Silva, we place only a small weight on this point.
Second, the purpose of justification, for Paul, is to make us into God’s children. That end has been accomplished, according to Gal 3.7, 3.26, 3.29, 4.6 – 7, and 4.28). The Galatians are not becoming children of the promise, but in fact already are.
Third, the effect of justification is to set the Galatians free from the curse of and enslavement to the Law. This is the entire argument of chapter 4, culminating in 5.1; it is also taught in 2.19.
Fourth, and finally, the consequence of justification is the crucifixion of the sin nature (2.20 – 21, 5,24, 6.14) and the corresponding giving of the Spirit (3.2, 4.6 – 7, 5.16 – 25).
The facts of having been made God’s children, having been set free from the curse of the Law, and having been given the Spirit make it clear that the justification of the Galatians by faith is a completed action.
Further, the fact of the crucifixion of the sin nature makes it clear that justification is irreversible. For if justification could be lost, the sin nature would have to be brought to life once again.
Fallen from Grace
A potential objection to the exegesis so far is that Paul states that “You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace.” (5.4) and again
“Now the works of the flesh are evident … I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.” (5.19 – 21).
There are two possible directions to take these statements.
(1) The Galatians have been justified, and some have lost their justification; others are in danger, if they carry out the works of the flesh, will fail to inherit the kingdom of God.
(2) Some of the Galatians, though outwardly professing faith, have been seeking to be justified by the law and have now fallen from their profession. Their receptivity to the Judaizers is evidentiary of their lack of faith, and hence lack of justification.
Still others are in need of warning that their deeds of the flesh are evidence that their flesh is not yet crucified.
Admittedly, (1) seems at first to be the easiest route, for it does not require a distinction between outward profession and genuine possession of justification.
However, it creates insuperable difficulties as one pursues that line of thought. How does one go from being a child of God to unbecoming a child of God? Is there Scriptural language to support the idea of loss of inheritance? How can the flesh nature be un-crucified?
And if these things are possible, then would not Hebrews 6 teach that falling from grace is an irreversible process, so that the warnings here would be moot?
For these reasons, (2) is worth considering.
Unlike circumcision, faith is an invisible quality that can only be measured, imperfectly, on the outside. It makes sense, therefore, that Paul would be uncertain as to the true state of their hearts. It is for this reason that he is “perplexed” about them (4.11, 20).
Outwardly, the church members in Galatia had professed faith. If that profession was genuine, then they received the Spirit, were crucified with Christ, and were made children of God.
And, they would also trust in Christ and not in circumcision.
The receiving of the circumcision is not a mere badge, but it reflects a heart belief that justification comes by an entirely different mechanism — the law — than the Gospel proclaims. The “faith” that leads to circumcision is entirely different from the Christian faith.
For this reason, it is best to see those “fallen away from grace” as having fallen from the grace they professed and not the grace they possessed.
Likewise, the warning of 5.21 is not a warning to tame the sin nature. For Paul reiterates that those who belong to Christ have crucified the sin nature. Rather, it is a warning about root and fruit: the fruit indicates which root is truly in operation in their lives.
This reading fits well with the similarly-structured warning in 1 Cor 6.9 – 11. Paul warns that those who carry out various wicked deeds will not inherit; but he then rushes to say that the Corinthians had been like this, but have now been washed.
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Andrew P.,
Wrote: This is what Sean wrote: “You’re merely exhibiting your ‘flatness’ of personality and acumen in your bias.”
Right. That is how some experience Bryan and how he comes across at times. Sean is not making a statement of fact, but giving his reaction.
And yet you write: Finally, I made a claim about the intellectual state of affairs among Reformed bloggers, but should have been more specific: among Reformed bloggers that write and comment on this site. There are exceptions.
Whereas your put-down to the bloggers on this thread is specific and intended. Where’s the love, Andrew?
This is all to say, few of us here are without sin (none I would say) as we interact. So the less we get in a snit, the better.
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 10:59 pm
Andrew P. says:
“Bryan has not “denied the intuitive.” He has simply taken a different approach to dialogue than those whose comments consist mainly of airing their intuitions. Again, this is a valuable service, especially when intuitions diverge.
Sean says:
He has declared the intuitive ‘unhelpful’. That’s a declarative based on a bias and nothing else. It’s his opinion, and he’s welcome to it. I interpret it as ‘woodenness’ that is both dismissive and less than holistic and disadvantageous to dialogue. It lacks tact, charity and maturity. Your doubting ‘that’ is noted.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Where’s the love, Andrew?
Dudes, its Friday night. You really wanna go hang at C2C? Here, try CoC instead, and enjoy a beer:
Jeff Cagle said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Faith Working Through Love
Now we come to it. What does Paul mean when he says,
εν γαρ χριστω [ιησου] ουτε περιτομη τι ισχυει ουτε ακροβυστια αλλα πιστις δι αγαπης ενεργουμενη
‘For in Christ, neither circumcision avails, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love.’
(1) Avails for what?
(2) At what point in time?
First, we consider the structure of Galatians. Gal. 1 – 4 is a strong argument against the Judaizers and for justification by faith; this corresponds to the first half of Paul’s thesis, “I have been crucified with Christ” (2.20a). Then, 5.16 to the end contain a description of life lived by the Spirit, corresponding to the second half, “the life I live I live by the Spirit…” (2.20b).
The section in question, 5.1 – 5.15, serves as a transitional hinge between the two main halves of this book.
So we are struck with a puzzle: Does faith, working through love, avail for our justification? Or, does it avail for the life lived by the Spirit?
The answer immediately suggests itself. Consistent with Paul’s argument in ch. 3, and then further down in 5, we can confidently say that
faith avails for justification
and justifying faith works through love
so that it avails for living the life through the Spirit.
There is no question of ongoing justification, received by ongoing faith-working-through-love. This concept is foreign to the book; where does Paul speak of continuing justification (except in reference to justification-through-law)? And after ch. 4, when speaking of life in the Spirit, where does Paul speak of being justified?
Rather, justification is once-and-done, with definitive consequences. One of these is the giving of the Spirit, so that the justified believer will exercise his faith in love.
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Jeff,
faith avails for justification
and justifying faith works through love
so that it avails for living the life through the Spirit.
Good analysis, summed up in your words above.
J
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Andrew P, what’s your record for most comments, at C2C? I think Lane’s got you beat bro! If you don’t like us, why do you hang with us?
Oh yeah, sheep stealing.
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:13 pm
sean (re: #418)
Adler is not my “boy.” But what he is referring to is a general survey. That’s altogether different from basing one’s criticisms of one’s interlocutor on mere prima facie appearances or “sounds like” or “seems like” impressions. The appearance/reality distinction is not the general/particular distinction.
In my experience, a dialogue aimed at resolving a disagreement is not aided toward that end when the participants do not exercise the discipline to withhold criticism of prima facie appearances or impressions of their interlocutor’s position, without first confirming that these appearances or impressions are accurate characterizations of their interlocutor’s position. Charity calls us to avoid setting up straw men of our interlocutor’s position, and so it calls to refrain from a shoot first ask questions later approach to our neighbor’s position. That’s a virtue necessary for fruitful rational dialogue.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:17 pm
Bryan, come on, we shared emails a while back. What is up with all the comments? Dude, I want to hear more of what you are learning in your PhD. Are you a professional blogger? Look, these ‘disagreements’ that you and your boys are trying to solve over here. What are you guys up to? Help the new guy out,
Andrew
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:19 pm
jsm52,
So is your position that if one does not intend to make a statement of fact, but only register a reaction, he is permitted to make offensive claims about another person?
Person 1: “X is an ignorant jerk.”
Person 2: “Hey, its offensive to call someone an ‘ignorant jerk.'”
Person 3: “No, Person 1 is not making a statement of fact about X, he is only reacting to his experience of X by claiming that X is an ignorant jerk. So its okay.”
Really?
You wrote:
Whereas your put-down to the bloggers on this thread is specific and intended. Where’s the love, Andrew?
This is all to say, few of us here are without sin (none I would say) as we interact. So the less we get in a snit, the better.
As a matter of fact, I did not specify which bloggers on this thread have been displaying a lack of intellectual discipline integrity in their comments. Anyone who cares to find out can read back through the thread. And its easy not to get in a snit, if the rules are that any personal insult is okay, so long as it is merely a reaction, and not a statement of fact. If you don’t like my claim about the sub-par intellectual state of affairs among Reformed bloggers on this website, then consider the claim to be simply my reaction to how I experience you guys. See? Not in a snit.
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:20 pm
I love all the opc references in the bios as c2c. You guys know we are a threat
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:22 pm
*at. I got comment 444! I’m an accountant, so sue me. -ab
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Andrew, its a love hate relationship, you love us. Admit it.
sean said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:26 pm
Bryan,
It’s not ‘altogether different’, it’s an initial point of engagement and analysis and may indicate more a generosity and way of expression than mere generality of understanding. Thank you for acknowledging that it’s merely your experience. That was my point. What’s truly fruitful for rational dialogue, is a lack of ‘woodenness’ and stiffness in language and dialogue and more a willingness to acquiesce to known points of discontinuity without ‘hanging’ your opponent on semantics.
jsm52 said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:29 pm
Andrew P.,
Me: This is all to say, few of us here are without sin (none I would say) as we interact. So the less we get in a snit, the better.
There are errors of omission and comission going on here. Are we to keep score? Forgive me for judging your intentions.
Andrew Preslar said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Just to be clear: by my claim about the “intellectual state of affairs” here, I am voicing my “atmospheric” understanding of matters, before drilling down to details; no pedantry, no analysis, just an intuition–or maybe a reaction.
Zrim said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:39 pm
“But faith come by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.”
True, but one must first determine that something is divine revelation; otherwise, one falls into fideism by believing arbitrarily. So reason must be used in order to determine that an alleged divine revelation is truly such.
Bryan, I know you’ll forgive me for my limited faculties, and I know I need to ask your confirmation before having the audacity to use those limited skills and press forward, but maybe you’ll indulge me even a bit further when I say that this sure sounds like (I know, sorry) if one has faith that the Bible really is divine revelation without having previously employed pristine reason to confirm it he is guilty of fideism. I always thought fideism was having faith in faith itself instead of faith in Christ. I’ve never understood it to mean simply believing that the Bible is the Word of God.
So it seems to me (sorry) that this is something of a stall tactic. I quote the Bible and you stop tape to make sure I’ve done my due diligence on the validity of the Bible. Still, if we can both agree the Bible is indeed divine revelation, you tell me that faith comes by reason and the Bible tells me it comes by hearing the Word of God. You still seem (sorry) to be at odds with the Bible.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 24, 2012 at 11:47 pm
You C2C folk really owe a ‘thank you’ to the good folks of GB. You put them down, say we are un-intellectual, and yet, they tirelessly answer you,question after question. Dudes, go post on your blog. I will read your posts, ans maybe, just MAYBE, will leave a comment. Peace.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 25, 2012 at 12:59 am
Andrew,
Fair enough, I’ll try again. If, after this comment, you still don’t think I have made my argument clear, then let’s just drop it.
I think that “faith working through love” (FWTL) is synonymous in Paul’s thought with “sowing to the Spirit” (in Gal. 5 and 6, respectively). The reason I think this is that Paul’s thought progresses from the love through which faith works to the fact that this love is what fulfills the law in such a way as to bypass the need for circumcision for justification (which is what the Judaizers insisted upon). So the love that is given in the NC fulfills the law, and results in justification.
From here, Paul goes on to say that this love comes from the Spirit and is his fruit, which is another way of saying that the Spirit pours out the love of God in our hearts (Rom. 5:5). So the love through which faith works (1) fulfills the law for justification, and (2) comes from the Spirit.
Next, Paul goes on to describe FWTL, and he calls it “walking in the Spirit” in ch. 5, and “sowing to the Spirit” in ch. 6.
Finally, Paul presents a conditional in ch. 6 when he says, “If you sow to the flesh you will reap corruption, but if you sow to the Spirit you will reap eternal life.” Given the progression of Paul’s thought in this pericope, Paul could very well have simply said, “If you exhibit faith, and the love which animates it, you will be justified. If you don’t, you won’t.” In fact, he said as much in I Corinthians when he said that if he had all faith such that he could move mountains, but had not love, it would profit him nothing.
On Matt. 12:37 you wrote:
I am not aware of a passage in the Bible where the object of “justify” is “our works” (I could be wrong, this isn’t a trick). In all the soteriological usages of dikaioo I can think of, the object is a person, not an action he has done. This is certainly the case in Matt. 12: “by your words you will be justified.” It is we who will be justified, not our words (our words are what will justify us on the last day). So you are just begging the question by insisting that it is our faith that will be justified on the last day, and not us by our words.
Huh. Imagine that….
Here’s what you appear to be saying: “Jesus says that on the last day there will be a final justification. But since there is no mention of [the uniquely Protestant teaching about] the imputation of alien righteousness here, therefore this final justification cannot be a declaration of our righteousness on the day of judgment.”
This is utterly circular.
My interpretation of this verse is so much simpler and consistent with what is actually said: Some people are “made good” (using Jesus’ tree illustration); those good people who exhibit (by their words) good fruit in their lives will be justified on the last day. I have no need, as you do, to deny that Jesus is talking about a final declaration of righteousness based on something other than faith alone.
Concerning Phil. 3:1-11 you wrote:
Again, no I can’t. It would take me all night to sift through all of my comments to provide you with their #s. If I allude to something I said, either search for it yourself or just trust me when I say it’s been discussed. But if you’re following the discussion, then you’ll probably just remember what has been said. On the other hand if you’re skipping a lot of stuff, that’s on you.
I wrote, “[The righteousness which comes through faith] doesn’t remain outside me or simply cover me the way snow covered Luther’s dunghill…. Paul directly connects our union with Christ and our possession of this righteousness (“and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”), which fits perfectly with what I am arguing for all along.” And you responded:
Perhaps, but I never made that case I don’t think. You’re the one who brought up this verse and asked my take on it. It’s not up to me to find something for you to disagree with me about here.
Here’s your argument: (1) The righteousness we need is not our own; (2) The righteousness we need is an alien righteousness, that of Christ; (3) We receive this righteousness by faith; (4) Therefore, this righteousness is imputed (as understood in the Reformed sense, I assume).
I pretty much agree with your premises, but not your conclusion (because it doesn’t necessarily follow). In fact, all your premises are stated explicitly in the passage, but your conclusion is found nowhere.
I understand Paul to be saying that the law of Moses cannot provide him with the righteousness he needs, and neither can he scrounge it up from his own works. Therefore he looks to Christ who, because of the new covenant, indwells him by his Spirit. Thus he can say, “I count all things rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own based on the law.” He then goes on to talk about participating in Jesus’ suffering and resurrection and the need for the Philippians to imitate his example as he presses toward the goal so that, if possible, they may all attain to the resurrection of the dead.
Dang, that sounds Catholic….
Jason Loh said,
August 25, 2012 at 2:21 am
“There is no question of ongoing justification, received by ongoing faith-working-through-love. This concept is foreign to the book; where does Paul speak of continuing justification (except in reference to justification-through-law)? And after ch. 4, when speaking of life in the Spirit, where does Paul speak of being justified?”
Re Jeff #438 – If I may add, FWTL in Gal 5:6 does not necessarily imply progression. If it does, then perhaps the contrast between circumcision and faith would probably not be sustained. Contrast – at least in this critical verse – implies some analogy or parallelism between circumcision and faith, i.e. some common denominator. If there is no parallelism, Paul’s argument about the unconditional rejection of circumcision would not make much sense. IOW, Paul is both comparing apples with oranges and apples with apples/ oranges with oranges. I think that common denominator would be their “once-for-all” character. Circumcision and faith supposedly “impacts” on the “entire person” (status) in the “here and now” and beyond. As Jeff points out, the difference being that one is “outward ritual,” the other is “inward confessional.” One binds the person to the Law; the other sets free from the Law. Both bondage and freedom are “total states” — to be declared totally bound or totally free are total judgments on the total person. Therefore, it’d be hardpressed to glean for any kind of progressive state from Paul’s statement here at least.
As it is, it is difficult and not altogether natural to assume with certainty that Paul had meant some progression (in the spiritual life) in the Pauline formula of FWTL. The parallelism or analogy would be lost — which would not even be conducive to the Roman Catholic paradigm in the first place(!) How is the circumcised (which is the theological equivalent to circumcision in Gal 5:6 since circumcision in the the context does not exist apart from the person) to progress in anything is bondage to the Law is in view — that is to say much more clearly, coram Deo, in the sight of Jesus Christ the God-Man?
The contrast, therefore, is not between carnal progression and spiritual progression per se but bondage (enslavement) and freedom (liberty). The use of the Law is turned upside down in the Pauline exposition in Gal 5 — instead of being the means of justification, it becomes the means of service for the sake of the neighbour. Gal 5:6 thus is an intriguing proposition of the “doctrine” of justification by faith alone where the Law is simultaneously “negated” coram Deo (“circumcision avails for nothing”) and “affirmed” (“For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself”).
Jason Loh said,
August 25, 2012 at 5:42 am
“If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” (Phil 4:11)
Yes, this verse is a problematic verse (which means that this must surely be a verse that Roman Catholics can claim greater legitimacy in interpretation) not least because in light of what Paul has just said in the preceding verses which creates the impression of ambiguity and or self-contradiction. The immediate preceding verses are “And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith: That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death.”
1. “Not having my own righteousness” is Paul’s distinction between possession and dominion, between having and owning. Otherwise as Paul goes on to say, that righteousness would be according to the Law (“of the law”) since we are all born under the Law and bound to the Law.
2. However, Paul not only says that our righteousness is not only Christ’s but is “based” on His (i.e. Christ’s) “faith.” And Paul also seems to equate the “what” of the righteousness of Christ with “how” it is received. Interesting for it seems to imply that faith as personal rather than natural (read: legal) not only “transcends” (or goes beyond) the Law from the perspective of the Christian but also Christ’s. In short, Christ’s righteousness is not legal (human) but personal (divine righteousness clothed in human nature) which in EO theology would be the divine energies which are as every bit deity as the Person and “Essence.” This being the case, to be “permeated” by the divine energies or righteousness of Christ, the Old Adam dies/ is destroyed only to be re-created anew as the New Adam.
3. Which is why it’s no surprise Paul does talk about death and resurrection by the end of verse 10. “That I may know him” comes after the talk about faith (Christ’s faith is righteousness and vice and versa and is mine by/ through faith — this is Pauline union and communion) — Credo ut intelligam, I believe that I may understand (“know”/ “experience”).
4. Coming to verse 11 itself … the problematic verse: “If by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead” where it seems like Paul now introduces a distinction in justification – initial (that if were so has been talked about earlier) and (here the) final. Nonetheless, we are all agreed – irrespective of the interpretation of verse 11 in particular and the rest of chapter 4 in general – that there is no self-contradiction here. Hence, it’s quite possible at least for the Protestant to assert a contrast all the more since verse 11 is continuation of the latter part of verse 10, namely, “being made conformable unto his death.” To be conformed to the death of Our Saviour is to *participate* in His death and by extension/ inclusion, resurrection (which for Lutherans and Roman Catholics this take place in Baptism). IOW, participation in the death and resurrection) of Jesus is the “ground” on which we co-suffer with Our Lord. That is the order/ sequence in which we first receive Jesus as Sacramentum and then only imitate Him as Our Exemplum. Our participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is thus eschatological, not ontological — reality but “already and not yet” wherein the New Adam remains hidden in the Old Adam on this side of the eschaton and only “perceived” by faith alone.
5. Thus, when Paul talks about *not* attaining the resurrection from the dead, it is highly plausible that he was referring to the Old Adam (i.e. in the flesh/ the empirical I) rather than the New Adam (transcendental I) who by faith is already resurrected. By extension, hence we find Paul’s speaking of having attained but not yet, not perfect but perfect, etc ….
6. In either case, Old or New, Paul doesn’t seem to hint any spiritual progression other than the pressing “toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.” The “prize” is glory (verse 21); the “high calling” is suffering (verse 10). IOW, having received the righteousness of Christ (Sacramentum), we now suffer after the manner of His example (Exemplum). Why suffer here (i.e. in this text?) I suppose it could be said that this is how we (i.e. who are still in our flesh – the Old Adam) can be made conformable to Christ. It is in our suffering that we daily die to be raised up anew in faith after the righteousness of Christ. Death & resurrection — total states, total “movement.”
paigebritton said,
August 25, 2012 at 8:04 am
JJS #452 –
Andrew M. can speak for himself here, but I do notice that in the Gospels dikaioo is used in a less technical and ultimate sense than in Acts and the Epistles. So that it is probably an anachronism to read soteriological ultimacy back into Matt. 12:37 — yes, even though the context is final judgment. Andrew’s reading (of one’s words simply proving what type of “tree” one is) is more in keeping with the simpler use of the verb in places like Luke 10:29 (“but he, desiring to justify himself”) and 16:15 (“You are those who justify yourselves before men”) and even 18:14 (“this man went down to his house justified”), though we’d maybe have to wrangle about that one a bit. You’ve also got the expression in Mt. 11:19 & Luke 7:35 that “wisdom is proved right by her children,” same verb. Doesn’t look like this verb in the Gospels can bear the weight of any kind of soteriology.
FWIW.
pb
Jason Loh said,
August 25, 2012 at 10:19 am
If I may add, it’s curious that Paul (with no explicit hint of asceticism) refers to the body (here and now — Old Adam) as “vile” in verse 21 (of Phil 3): “Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.” it’s as if Paul has succumbed to “Gnosticism” where the body is disparaged as “pure evil” — implying a kind of a dualism which the Church has had to wrestle with and challenge. Consonant with the apostolic and catholic Faith in Scripture and Tradition, a (Gnostic) dualism within the human is exluded here in verse 21.
I, therefore, believe it’s unhelpful for a Protestant (not specifically referring to any theologian – clerical, professional, lay – or theological movement) to infer or “insinuate” from Phil 3 that Paul is teaching that suffering the way or means whereby we attain (final) glory. Or to put it in another way, “the Christian’s perseverance in the way of righteousness and suffering is necessary (not meritoriously but instrumentally and finally) to his/ her attaining the state of glory.”
Paul’s statement in verse 21 quite probably militate against such a notion … in fact, consistent with this is his earlier desire (aspiration?) to attain the bodily resurrection now (if only — “***If by any means*** I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead”), the suffering in a “vile” body in and of itself is not really esteemed or valued by Paul. Verse 8: “Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
The compatible paradigm is one where glory (of the New Adam) is already a present reality but well and truly *hidden* in the flesh (of the Old Adam) … so that suffering becomes the sovereign means of God as One Who is both Hidden and Revealed to hide His glory “in” the saints —thus making way or room for *faith* whereby we know Our Saviour and the power of His resurrection having been conformed unto His death.
For our conversation *is* in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Or to quote St Paul the Apostle from Romans 8;18:
“For I reckon that the *sufferings* of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed *in* us.”
paigebritton said,
August 25, 2012 at 10:31 am
@JJS once more:
And to anticipate an objection, the parallel idea in Matt. 12:37, that one’s words might “condemn” one, is not an ultimate word either. It’s katadikazo, which is used only five times in the NT, each time referring to the mental act of judging someone guilty, sometimes wrongly, and maybe the earthly judicial act of sentencing to death (but not the ultimate judicial act of sentencing them to eternal punishment — that gets a different verb or two):
“Do not condemn and you will not be condemned” (Lk. 6:37, twice);
“If you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy…,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.” (Mt. 12:7);
“You have condemned and murdered innocent men…” (James 5:6).
pb
Brad B said,
August 25, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Paul also says in 2 Cor. 13:5
I dont think the conditional in ch.6 of Galations carries with it the assumption that his words are only heard by the elect [no more than the intended audience of 2 Cor]. The justified will persevere because they have Jesus Christ in them, this is why they pass the text of sow/reap inspection-not perfectly, but probably increasingly.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 25, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Jason and Andrew: The comments about Philippians are almost certainly in one of three threads: Response, List Paradigm, or Arguments Concerning the Papacy.
From there, I would hit CTRL-F to “find”, and search for Philip.
But y’all probably knew that.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 25, 2012 at 2:48 pm
Jeff,
If I wait to have a full-on response to you before I post, it will take too long. So I will respond in installments and post them as I go. (You can probably tell that I hate sitting at my computer all day, so I may not respond right away to further questions about these responses until all of what you said has been responded to.)
You offer several lines of evidence for this claim, which I’ll try to respond to briefly:
First, you point to the verbal tense Paul uses. I don’t find this compelling at all; Paul speaks elsewhere of future justification on the day of judgment (Rom. 2), as well as speaking of that concept while omitting the word “justification” (“waiting for the hope of righteousness” from Gal. 5 comes to mind). So there’s too much of a tie in your argument between the word and the concept. More on this eventually.
Second, you point to the Galatians having become children of God as a result of their justification. But this argument only works if one of your premises is that the child-of-God status cannot be lost. You do address this later, so I will come back to it.
Third, you argue that justification is once for all because it results in freedom from enslavement to the law. But if it were possible to be entangled again in that yoke of bondage after having begun in the Spirit, then there’s no reason why the freedom gained from justification (and maybe even justification itself) can’t be forfeited (which seems to be Paul’s whole point: “Stand fast in your liberty, and don’t submit again to a yoke of bondage”).
Lastly, you argue that if justification is intended to crucify our sin nature, then that fact necessitates its being once for all. But unless your sanctity-level is way higher than mine, I think you’d agree that the putting-to-death of the flesh is a lifelong process. So if there’s both a once-for-all accomplishment and ongoing application of the crucifixion of our flesh, and if justification is instrumental in the crucifixion of our flesh, then there’s no reason why justification needs to be once for all. It can be both initial as well as ongoing.
More tonight.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 25, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Lane,
I’ve been poking around on C2C…
We really need to start defending chapter 1 of WCF, I think, many of these former reformers forgot to read that. I’ll read your stuff here on the doctrine of Scripture. I think 2000 or more comments on all this Stellman stuff (in just the last couple weeks? Who knows how long this will continue) is enough. Of course, run your own blog, I’m just trying to help.
My two sense (id be so luck if i have two…)only,
Andrew
Reed Here said,
August 25, 2012 at 4:03 pm
Jason: I’ll let Jeff take this up if he wishes, but consider what you’ve said to him here:
I can’t help but observe that you were responding to Jeff’s comment about justification crucifying sin nature. Yet you responded with a sanctification perspective. You are swapping here, consistent with the RCC position to be sure, but swapping nonetheless.
I admit I’ve not looked at the original context of your quote and discussion with Jeff. Yet I think this observation is nevertheless reasonable. The only way this is a problem for Jeff is if one mixes justification with sanctification. That is, it is only if the RCC confusion of justification with sanctification follows, that your experience based observation is effective in detracting from Jeff’s point. If the RCC position does not follow then there is something of substance to what Jeff is observing.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 25, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Jason,
Thanks for the reply. I would say this:
(1) Yes, the language argument is intended only to be suggestive and not compelling. The meat is in the second through fourth points.
Still, it is striking, is it not, that Paul only uses the present aspect when speaking of seeking to be justified by the Law, while using aorist when speaking of being justified by faith.
The question that it raises in my mind is, Coincidence or purposeful?
That’s all. It’s not a proof, but the opening of a line of inquiry.
(2) You write,
you point to the Galatians having become children of God as a result of their justification. But this argument only works if one of your premises is that the child-of-God status cannot be lost.
Not exactly. One could be Arminian, for example.
We want to split out two issues. The first is, Are we already justified and therefore already made children of God?
The Galatian answer is clearly Yes. For this reason, I would argue that “ongoing justification” cannot serve the function of making us children of God; it cannot be the justification that Paul is speaking of in Galatians.
IOW, even if we were to accept a Catholic scheme of “initial” and “subsequent” justifications, it still would be necessary to say that Paul is speaking of “initial” justification here in Galatians.
The second issue is, Can justification be lost? I argue from the “crucified” language that this is not so, but there is little evidence in Galatians for this.
So no, I’m not arguing from the premise you are thinking of.
(3) Your reply to the third point has the same need to split out the two issues above. Yes, it might be hypothetically possible to be re-entangled.
But the point here is that since freedom has been accomplished, therefore the Galatians are not in the process of being justified. Rather, they have been justified.
(4) JJS: So if there’s both a once-for-all accomplishment and ongoing application of the crucifixion of our flesh, and if justification is instrumental in the crucifixion of our flesh, then there’s no reason why justification needs to be once for all. It can be both initial as well as ongoing.
I agree that there is both once-for-all and also an ongoing application. And hypothetically, this fact could open the door for both initial and ongoing justifications, if such could be demonstrated.
But not here in Galatians. What Paul is talking about is initial only, as evidenced by his focus on “flesh has been crucified.”
There is no language anywhere in Galatians that attaches the term “justification” to ongoing work of the Spirit or works of righteousness. For Paul, in Galatians, justification is an event already accomplished. That’s my point, independent of the question of whether this justification can be lost.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 25, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Jeff,
In the section you title “Fallen from Grace” you write:
It seems to me that Paul’s and Hebrews’ (not to mention Jesus’) many allusions to OT Israel are intended to show how they, by their rebellion, disobedience, and faithlessness, lost their inheritance, and they both draw a direct connection to us with a warning attached lest the same happen to us. So the answer to your question is yes, there is biblical precedent for this all over the place.
OK, no argument here. The same would be true if justification were received initially in baptism but losable due to mortal sin.
Paul says these things about them anyway, without the qualification that your paradigm makes necessary. He tells them that they “began in the Spirit, but were seeking to be perfected in the flesh.” So all the things you’re saying could be said truly about a baptized person (in the Catholic paradigm), and moreover, in the Catholic paradigm those things can be said without the added “if your profession is genuine,” which Paul also omits.
I’m sorry, but I just can’t see how you got from where you began to where you ended. And I don’t see why anything you’ve said necessitates that the Galatians, if they indeed fell from grace, never had grace in the first place. Your entire approach demands that what Paul threatens cannot in fact happen, and that the worst that could happen is that they made a false profession (rather than actually having lost anything real).
More later….
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Jeff (re: #463),
As I have explained in “Justification: The Catholic Church and the Judaizers in St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians,” in the Catholic paradigm the ‘process’ of justification-as-translation (i.e. translation from being dead in sins to being in a state of grace) is not the same thing as “growth in justification.” The ‘process’ of justification-as-translation is instantaneous (which is why it shouldn’t be called a process). So the fact of already accomplished justification-as-translation does indeed rule out the possibility of still being in the ‘process’ of justification-as-translation. But in the Catholic paradigm, the fact of already accomplished justification-as-translation does not entail that there is no ongoing process of growth in justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 25, 2012 at 9:37 pm
So what about baptism and justification? How are we to understand Galatians 3.27?
For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.
Are we to understand this in the classic Catholic manner, that By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin….Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte “a new creature,” an adopted son of God, who has become a “partaker of the divine nature,” member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit. — CCC 1213 – 1284.
and again, Baptism is the first and chief sacrament of forgiveness of sins because it unites us with Christ, who died for our sins and rose for our justification, so that “we too might walk in newness of life.” “When we made our first profession of faith while receiving the holy Baptism that cleansed us, the forgiveness we received then was so full and complete that there remained in us absolutely nothing left to efface, neither original sin nor offenses committed by our own will, nor was there left any penalty to suffer in order to expiate them. . . . — CCC 977.
OR, should we understand this in the classic Reformed way
Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world…
Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect his ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. WCoF 28.1, 5.
Or perhaps something else?
Two considerations make the Catholic understanding impossible.
First, Paul’s use of language here in Galatians unambiguously attributes faith as the cause of justification.
Suppose I were to ask seniors to read Galatians, and then I asked them “According to Paul in Galatians, how are we justified?” If a senior responded, “by baptism”, I would conclude that he had read something other than Galatians.
The language in 3.27 (all of those baptized into Christ have put on Christ) is not causal language. By itself, it could be consistent with baptismal regeneration; but taken next to the multiple statements of justification by faith, which is explicitly causal, and it is clear that 3.27 cannot be taken as any kind of evidence for the RC understanding.
Catholics now respond, “But baptism is the sacrament of faith. We need to understand that justification by faith and justification by baptism refer to one and the same event.”
This is linguistically unlikely. It asks us to read Paul in this way:
“Gal 3.7: Know then that it is those of faith** who are the sons of Abraham.
**Baptism, which is the sacrament of faith.”
This stretches credulity.
But the second consideration is absolutely fatal. How were the Old Testament saints justified? Paul makes it clear that they were justified by faith.
And it is clear that they were not recipients of baptism.
How then were they justified?
We have two options. If we believe, as I do, that The sacraments of the old testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new. (WCoF 27.5), then circumcision served the same sacramental function as baptism.
But we know that Abraham was justified by faith prior to circumcision, and that he serves as the pattern for our own justification (Rom 4.1 – 15).
So if circumcision served the same sacramental function as baptism, then our justification is by faith, apart from baptism — just as Abraham’s was by faith, apart from circumcision.
If on the other hand circumcision did not serve the same sacramental function as baptism, then the argument is simpler: the OT saints were justified by faith, and they were never baptized. Baptism is therefore not necessary for justification.
Either way, we come to the same conclusion. The OT saints were justified by faith and were not justified by baptism nor any equivalent to baptism.
How then can we say that baptism is now necessary for salvation?
—
So why does Paul bring up baptism in 3.27 if he is not speaking causally?
We recall that Paul’s argument in Galatians is that receiving circumcision is not necessary for justification (and is in fact harmful, for it opposes faith in Christ). How does the argument proceed?
He argues in chap. 3 that
* We are justified by faith as Abraham was (3.1 – 9).
* We are made children of God by faith (3.26).
* All who are baptized into Christ have put on Christ (3.27)
* All who are children of God are children of Abraham (3.29).
This argument answers the Judaizers in this way:
* Justification is by faith, not by works of the law
* We are made children of God by faith, not by circumcision
* Baptism, not circumcision, is the sign of our inclusion.
* And belonging to Christ rolls up being part of Abraham’s people into it.
Thus, any desired benefit of circumcision is already theirs in Christ. The language of 3.27 is placing sign against sign, baptism against circumcision — not cause against cause.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 25, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Bryan (#465): I understand your paradigm. My point is that in Galatians, Paul is speaking of Justification-as-Translation.
This means that “faith working through love” is not evidence for ongoing growth in justification.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 25, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Jason,
Sitting down with paint-stained fingers after a long sweaty day in hot and humid Houston (why do I live in Houston? – oh yea, I have an O&G job and we have oil here).
OK, so I asked you to flesh out what I thought was incomplete in your position. You did this but I was expecting a more fully formed theology of faith and works from a Catholic perspective. But as mentioned before, I don’t really know that you are 100% in the RCC camp. Perhaps you are 9/10 across the Tiber and looking back now and wondering if this was a good idea after all. Maybe that’s why you are saying things that seem to be somewhere between Roman Catholic and Reformed theology. Don’t know. Anyway, what I thought I might hear in your fleshed out explanation is something that sounds more distinctly Tridentine – the kind of verbiage about people creating shipwreck of their souls after having received initial justification and being able to renew their justified state by means of the various sacraments and the treasury of merits and so on. You know what I mean – something clear about works (sacramental or works of charity) that (along with faith) justify us.
But you say this at the end of your explanation of your now non-Reformed theology:
Given the progression of Paul’s thought in this pericope, Paul could very well have simply said, “If you exhibit faith, and the love which animates it, you will be justified. If you don’t, you won’t.” In fact, he said as much in I Corinthians when he said that if he had all faith such that he could move mountains, but had not love, it would profit him nothing.
I know this may annoy you somewhat, but I can’t say that I disagree with this. Surely the Reformers would have agreed that if we exhibit true faith (that is, one animated by love) we will be justified. But that does not really delineate the role that love, more specifically the works which flow out of this love, play in obtaining our justification.
So maybe I should ask you if you are 100% there with respect to a distinctly Tridentine theology of justification. I don’t think I want to try to debate with someone who is most of the way along the road to Roman Catholicism any more than I imagine you want to debate with a three-point Calvinist who is wrestling with the other points but is not sure he is there yet. So are you fully on board or am I shooting a moving target?
On Matt. 12 you say:
My interpretation of this verse is so much simpler and consistent with what is actually said: Some people are “made good” (using Jesus’ tree illustration); those good people who exhibit (by their words) good fruit in their lives will be justified on the last day. I have no need, as you do, to deny that Jesus is talking about a final declaration of righteousness based on something other than faith alone..
Well Jason, again, I can’t say that I disagree that those people who are made good and those people who exhibit good fruit in their lives will be justified in God’s sight. In the Reformed schema Regeneration precedes Justification so yes, only those who are made good will be justified, and yes, they will certainly exhibit good works. Why should I disagree with this if I am Reformed? And as to your last sentence, I did agree that our works do justify us in that it they demonstrate that our faith is real.
I think I’ll stop prior to getting into Philippians. But I will quickly add that Paige’s response (#455) in reference to dikaioo is right on target. I would add a similar sort of analysis for dikaiosynē. I won’t go into my own analysis but will reference the discussion of the verb and noun here: http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/08/paul-james-and-word-concept-fallacy.html. But of course this is the old Jason arguing here. So where is the new Jason? You fought the Roman Catholic Church, but has she won yet or just raised difficult questions you cannot answer at this juncture?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 25, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Jason (#464): Your entire approach demands that what Paul threatens cannot in fact happen, and that the worst that could happen is that they made a false profession (rather than actually having lost anything real).
Actually, my approach is that Paul is targeting his warning to a narrow group: to those who have “fallen from grace.” He wants them to realize that they are outside of faith in Christ, to repent, and to trust in Christ.
This would be consistent with either a Catholic or a Reformed approach to the passage.
My point in that section was simply that Paul’s “fallen from grace” is not particularly strong evidence for either position.
Bryan Cross said,
August 25, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Jeff, (re: #466)
Catholic doctrine also recognizes [living] faith as the cause of justification. So this “consideration” does not “make the Catholic understanding impossible.” The assumed premise in your argument is that if according to St. Paul faith is the cause of justification, then according to St. Paul nothing else (e.g. baptism) is the cause of justification. But then it would follow that according to St. Paul Jesus is not the cause of justification. So that’s an assumption that you yourself reject. So your argument depends on a premise that you yourself reject.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 25, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Bryan,
Why is this hard to understand:
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 25, 2012 at 11:30 pm
C2C makes my blood boil:
“For the Protestant alternative is to say that since Scripture alone is infallible, that means the Church cannot claim such authority when it comes to Scriptural interpretation. At the same time, we know we cannot simply leave this task to each individual Christian, for neither the individual Christian nor the tradition to which he belongs can claim to possess some sort of authority that he refuses to attribute to the Church. So, we are left with the question of how we can know, how we can decide with confidence, which of the endlessly diverse and contradictory Christian traditions has things right – hardly a trivial matter, if it might mean heresy on the one hand or fidelity to the Faith on the other.”
Every sentence here is not true. I don’t even know where to start.
Who are you, C2C people, and what are you doing here?
You are hereby called to repentance and to communion with the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. And it’s not the one with ‘Roman’ in its name.
I’ve heard enough,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 25, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Gb’ers,
Time to mobilize and march to C2C. Post comments!
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 25, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Oh, that’s right. That’s not the kind of people we are. Not to mention, we have better things to do.
isaiah. said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:19 am
Andrew (472) …
Hello again. On this:
If you are serious here (sounds like you are), and not just having more fun (no complaints here, but it will make my next point moot), my question for you is:
Which church (or Church) is it that we are called to repent at and come into communion with, if not the Roman one? I do mean this in all seriousness. And it is of utmost importance to me that we resolve this.
To me it seems the crux of the matter is an answer to the following question: For a Calvinist of your (or other GBers’) stripe, can one be “saved” while being a faithful member of the Catholic Church (i.e., the one that often, though not always, includes the word “Roman” in it)?
Keep in mind that many of us Catholics grew up very faithful, very serious, very “born again” Protestants (need I remind you?). But there are many Protestants of the Reformed tradition who seem to indicate that we must no longer be “saved,” for we have turned from the faith of our childhood, which some say was the “correct” faith, to the “Apostate” “false religion” of the “Romanists”. Which, again, for many means we were never “truly saved” to begin with.
Yes, this is a very serious matter indeed. Eager to hear your response.
ih.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:35 am
Finally.
Hello Isaiah, it’s nice to ‘meet’ you.
I promise to be kind and forthright. No equivocating. Where I make an error, or am hurtful, call me out. I am a sinner. I expect to fail going forward. But my God is with me. And in His strength, do I rest and have confidence.
I will be the first to say I am not as sophisticated as people here are. They know more how to answer your questions. So there are better answers than I myself can give. Anyone, chime in, as you feel led.
As for what church you must join, I seriously don’t know. But do you see just how hurtful C2C is, as a website? It’s truly an organization designed for no other reason than to stir up controversy, and disrupt the peace and unity of the church. I am serious. And this whole thing (the back and forth here, and the more I read at C2C) makes me sick.
I’m willing to flesh out exactly what church the hypothetical C2C Romanist must join upon leaving that false communion. If you give me time, it should become apparent. I could make more statements here, but some have already been made, and you will just have to wait. I am not dismissing your question. But there’s much bigger issues going on here. Trust me for the time being. I’m going nowhere.
And yes, God is not required to have his children be a part of a church. I don’t like saying this. Because I love church. But the simple fact is, God is God. The Church is not God. God is not the church. I had to realize in my own faith journey that it is God whom I have a relationship with, and not the Bible that has been at my side for as long as I can remember. There’s more to share, with anyone interested, in how my faith developed. And how I came to appreciate just what WCF 1 says. Go read it, please. I digress..
My dear, Romanist, friend, Isaiah,
I will pull out in Machen’s “What is Faith,” exactly where he states that whether a man or woman is saved is knowledge only known to God. I’m sorry if someone seemed to suggest to you otherwise, that they knew something about your eternal state.
You need to seriously consider the “OPC” references in the C2C bios. The little band of Machen Warrior Children is indeed a threat to the monolithic RCC. There is indeed a serious problem. If you are truly an honest questioner and seeker, you (or anyone) and I can continue public dialogue. I don’t have all the answers, or all that many. But I am ordained in the OPC. And I’ll be damned if you tell me that I must kiss Benedict’s ring.
And with that, I make my exit. By the way, do you golf?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:35 am
Will a mod please delete my last comment? Here it is without the formatting error:
Jeff,
Concerning the issue of faith working through love (FWTL), you begin by saying:
A couple thoughts: first, who says that this particular breakdown of the epistle is in fact the correct one, and the one Paul (and/or the Holy Spirit) had in mind when it was originally written?
Secondly, even if I were to grant this specific structure as a working hypothesis, it is full of holes. For example, the verses containing a reference to the Spirit in the section of the book you say is about justification total the exact number of verses referring to the Spirit in what you call the section on life in the Spirit (six). Further, in the first section of the book (the part supposedly before Paul gets to the issue of life in the Spirit), Paul talks about:
How the Galatians received the Spirit (3:3)
How that they have begun in the Spirit (3:4)
The one who supplies the Spirit to them (3:5)
Our receiving the promised Spirit (3:14)
God having sent the Spirit into our hearts (4:6)
How that the NC people of God have been born according to the Spirit (4:29)
So in a word, I think your proposed breakdown of the epistle is arbitrary, and that it violates its own rules.
I agree that the answer immediately suggests itself, but disagree on what that suggestion is. Your answer—that faith working through love avails for sanctification—depends upon both a distinction between justification and sanctification that is uniquely Protestant and by no means obvious, as well as upon an artificial breakdown of the epistle itself.
The immediate context of the FWTL is Paul’s question to those “who would be justified by the law” (v. 4). He then insists that circumcision avails nothing (v. 6). The only reasonable answer to the question “avails nothing for what?” is “avails nothing for justification.” I mean, it’s right there in the text! But what does avail for justification? Faith working through love.
He speaks of it in 5:4-6!
Exhibiting a living faith that works through love is synonymous for Paul with walking in the Spirit, living by the Spirit, and sowing to the Spirit. This kind of living avails for justification, and will issue forth in eternal life (5:6; 6:8). I will even be as bold to say that the only way this can be denied is if one’s systematic-theological interpretive paradigm is exalted to the place where the actual Scripture needs to bow down to it. That’s not a shot at you, so please don’t that it that way. But to insist (like Horton did with me repeatedly) that Paul is talking about sanctification in Gal. 5 and not justification (despite the fact that he explicitly mentions the latter but not the former) is baffling if one just looks at the words on the page.
The living faith that I spoke of above is what Paul says Abraham exhibited in Rom. 4 (and as is clear from the end of the chapter, his faith was anything but passive and non-contributory). Abraham clearly had justifying faith in Gen. 12 (else Hebrews 11 severely misinterpreted the significance of his leaving Ur and striking out for a land that God would afterwards show him). Abraham was explicitly declared righteous in Gen. 15:6 (“he believed God, and his faith was counted as righteousness”). But James cites that very passage from Gen. 15:6 to describe the “justification” that Abraham received in Gen. 22, when the patriarch’s “faith was active along with his works” (which sounds a bit like “faith working through love”!). And on top of all this, both Jesus and Paul speak of a final “justification” on the last day (both in unequivocally soteriological contexts).
So no, according to the Bible, justification is not “once and done.”
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:46 am
PS Isaiah: are you CtoC?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 1:31 am
Wow Jason, you are a thinker. Sorry I doubted. Stick around. Peace. -ab
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 1:40 am
Jeff (re: #466)
You said:
I already addressed your first consideration in comment #470. Here’s your second consideration that is supposed to “make the Catholic understanding impossible.”
Suppose I were to ask seniors to read Peter’s Pentecost sermon in Acts 2, and then I asked them “According to Peter in his Pentecost sermon, how are our sins forgiven?” If a senior responded, “by faith,” I would conclude that he had read something other than Acts 2, because in his sermon the only things Peter says are required for forgiveness of sins are repentance and baptism.
The point is that what seniors take from a reading of a portion of Scripture is not a good way of determining the full content of the apostolic deposit, and in no way “makes the Catholic understanding impossible.”
You then say:
Again, the presupposition implicit in your argument needs to be made explicit. Your argument presupposes that if justification is by faith, then justification cannot be by anything else. But as I showed in #470, that’s a presupposition you yourself do not hold. So your conclusion only follows by making use of a premise that you yourself reject.
If hearing is the means by which Christ gives us the act of faith, and baptism is the means by which Christ gives us the supernatural virtues of faith and agape which together constitute living faith, and justification is by living faith, then justification is by baptism, because living faith is by baptism. It is not an either/or (i.e. faith or baptism), just as it is not an either/or in the case of justification by faith and justification by Christ.
So your argument here in no way “makes the Catholic understanding impossible,” because your argument depends on a premise that you yourself reject, and which is not found in the epistle to the Galatians, or anywhere else in the whole Bible.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
isaiah said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:08 am
Andrew B.
Thanks for your response. Just a short answer for now.
1. I disc golf. Does that count?
2. I am not in any way associated with the CtoC bloggers, except that we share the Catholic faith. Or, if you are asking whether I am “called to communion”, I can only answer that I mostly just want to dispel the usual vitriol with which many (though certainly not all) Protestants disseminate their hatred for Catholic Christians and anything smacking of “Romanism”, and to do so by correcting the misinformation.
In the grace of Christ going before and after me,
ih.
P.S. If you are in some way “called to communion,” (which I gather you define differently than your Catholic brothers), then I suggest you avoid the use of “Romanism” in reference to Catholics, as it has the ring of a pejorative and is therefore counter to the spirit of ecumenism.
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:42 am
Jeff (re: #466)
You wrote:
By now you know what I’m going to say. Here again you presuppose that if justification is by faith, then it is not by baptism. Your either/or presupposition is doing the argumentative work, by requiring that if justification were by baptism, then Paul could not have said that justification is by faith, without including asterisks and footnotes.
Next you write:
Your argument here presupposes that the conditions for justification under the New Covenant must be identical to (or at least nothing more than) the conditions for justification under the Abrahamic covenant, or even prior to the Abraham covenant. Given that presupposition, then if baptism was not required for justification at any point in the Old Testament, then baptism must not be required for justification under the New Covenant. This notion that the sacramental conditions for justification under the New Covenant must be identical to (or at least nothing more than) the conditions for justification under the Abrahamic covenant or prior to the Abrahamic covenant, is nowhere stated in Scripture. It is a philosophical presupposition imported from outside the text of Scripture. Christ cut the New Covenant with His own blood, and He therefore gets to establish the conditions of the Covenant, by which we are made partakers of its benefits. How then can we say that baptism is now necessary for salvation? Because Christ said so. He is the one who said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” (St. John 3:5) And “He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.” (Mk. 16:16)
You wrote:
If baptism were merely a sign of faith, there would have been no need to replace circumcision with baptism. Circumcision would have been the sign of faith in all those who are sons of Abraham by faith. But your reduction of baptism to a mere sign of faith, and not the sacramental means of faith, is nowhere to be found in Scripture, or in the Church Fathers, who unanimously affirmed baptismal regeneration, as I showed in “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.”
Not only that, but you have to make St. Paul not even mean what he says in Gal 3:27. He says there, “ὅσοι γὰρ εἰς Χριστὸν ἐβαπτίσθητε, Χριστὸν ἐνεδύσασθε.” That’s not mere sign language; that’s ontological language. As many as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ, that is, become united to Him, inserted into His Body, regenerated by His Spirit, infused with grace, supernatural faith, and agape, which is His righteousness. This union with Christ, and all that goes with it, is effected in baptism, which is not merely a sign of faith, but is the means by which we receive the salvation Christ won for us on Calvary. In order to construe this verse as reducing baptism to a mere sign, you have to deny what it actually says, that as many as were baptized into Christ, put on Christ. What’s going on here is that your paradigm won’t allow you to grant baptism any efficacy, and so you have to try to force it to say something weaker than it actually says. But what St. Paul says here should cause you to reconsider the either/or presupposition that lies beyond your assumption that baptism can have no causal role in justification, because faith does.
If what you are laying out here from Scripture is supposed to “make the Catholic understanding impossible,” it only shows that what makes the Catholic understanding impossible is not the text itself, but approaching Scripture through a paradigm that already denies the Catholic understanding.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:51 am
“lies beyond” should be “lies behind”
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2012 at 4:04 am
Isaiah 475:
I don’t have too much time to get into a discussion about this, but thing of Roman government and the Roman hierarchy as a parasite upon the one true church.
Andrew Buckingham is talking about the one true church upon which Rome is the parasite.
David Gadbois said,
August 26, 2012 at 4:27 am
Gentlemen, for the sake of “cleaning house” please take discussions relating to Galatians on the topic of justification to the new post:
All other peripheral discussion relating to Lane’s post can continue here.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 8:26 am
Isaiah,
No problem with responding shortly. I do it all the time. With three kids under the age of 6, really, I have very little excuse spending my free time in these matters. I take these things very seriously, but these blog comments I write a more of a hobby than my job. So yeah, I like even short comments that acknowledge that someone read.
“except that we share the Catholic faith”
Ok, and, I got a little testy about the CtoC folk. I’d like to continue talking about the CtoC folk because it is their actions and what I read on their website that irks me. As for your being the in the “Catholic faith,” know that, for my part, I actually am able to dispel with the usual vitriol. Why? Well, for one, I am ignorant. I try to read these comments as quick as I can. Yes, I see vitriol out here. I hope you sense in me, personally, a hand reaching across the isle. I posted the J Gresham Machen quote that I mentioned, to my google plus “posts” section. I mean it – only God knows who is saved. I don’t want to go into that. But your salvation is something, while yes, I am concerned about, because I am a deacon in a presbyterian church, and just a human being who has experienced what it means to be loved by the Creator, that I want to share. I’m not here to judge you. But you need to know, I do have some concerns with what I know about the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. I am not the guy to explain what those concerns are…in and amongst others’ vitriol, I think, you will be reading real people who have real problems, and have really thought about the problems in the RCC’s teaching. So follow along, as you are able. I will too.
Yeah, I will get rid of “Romanism.” From now on, your religious affiliation will be to me a label called, ‘Roman Catholic.” I will likely simply address you as Isaiah, however. It’s not an unreasonable thing to be asked to called something. Yeah, it seems rude, if people are unwilling to even budge on what to call someone. Consider me a sympathetic ear to your concern here. Words have meaning, and we should take seriously when people take offense at labels put forth upon individuals here or entire ecclesiastical bodies like the RCC.
You say, “if I am in some way called to communion.”
I don’t really know what “called to communion” means. But here’s my short soliloquy, and then I’m going to try to get back to training for my 8k run, which is in October. I’m out of shape, so it’s no easy task, but I’m doing it!
What you’ll hear around here is that the “true” church is one that adheres to the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”). We take that document really seriously. It is our secondary standard (for us personally in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, and for many “reformed” churches that, like us, are a member of the body, “NAPARC.” WCF summarizes Scripture. We are really big Bible fans on our side, and feel that the “only rule of faith and practice” is the Bible. (“the Bible itself being the only infallible rule of faith and practice” – http://www.opc.org/confessions.html)
But aside from that, yeah, sure, me personally, I am called to attend church today, for example, and God has me in a congregation of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. And perhaps we are having communion today (which is the little cracker and small plastic cup with wine that doesn’t take like any wine I usually drink, but no biggee). “Communion” is a bigger concept which I personally have only begun to understand. I listened to the book, “Communion with the Triune God” by John Owen. I’m not going to lie – the pulse of that man’s thought, or something, truly does brought me to tears. I use a text to speech feature to listen to something like that. And I was so overwhelmed with the love of Christ poured forth, I had to stop listening and just kind of, I don’t know, really consider what exactly was being told me. It’s a wonderful experience to feel in the presence of Holy God who is love.
So am I called to communion? Well, I’m currently not called to join with the CtoC folks, and pack up my bags, and leave my current church. I’m very very offended by what that website is and what I read out here. It truly is a disruptive organization, driven by I know not what, but I can’t believe that an organization puts itself out as the one place where people go to bring unity in the church. If only people like me would quit my church, and join what they KNOW is the true communion, in the manifestation of one of the many denominations in Christendom, namely, the RCC.
I almost want anyone from CtoC, who shows up, to have some kind of scarlet C around their neck, or at least, any comment on this blog, to preface with the idea that the CtoC person talking is one who, really, is branded as a person who is trying to stir up strife. I fear for the damage done to people souls, who read their words, on blogs like this.
I’m sure they have their motives. But I started reading in May. And it all makes me sick.
I could go on and on. There’s more to share about me. But this is waaaay too long and personal and etc etc. Hence why we should probably continue via e-mail, about that stuff.
But if there matters we wish to “discuss” publicly, I will stick around. Maybe Lane can do another post, and we can talk there. I personally don’t blog, and have no intention to start.
I’m not sure, but maybe, David G. gave the green light for perhaps a type of discussion like this. But it needs to center on Lane’s words. I fear for our mods and their time. They shouldn’t be put through my words and drivel, because we are talking Godly men and women who sacrafice for people like you and me, who, for some reason, feel we must post public, and can’t resolve our questions by talking to people in our own immediate circles, or via e-mail.
With that, no, I think I have only disc golfed once. But I would love to get it a try. Why golf? Because, man, if we can’t be friends at the end of the day, after all this typing, and golf together, than my goodness, and this goes for you all – stop your blogging and commenting if all it does is makes you angry at the individual typing here. Let’s use this opportunity to find people who are with us in the cause of promoting the Gospel. Isaiah, I wish to keep things here light hearted. I don’t always succeed. And my light heartedness gets offensive too. But golf is a really fun sport. I played a short course, nine holes, with a guy from my chuch, who is 15, who had never played before. We shared the joy of Christian friendship.
So with that, get out and golf if you can. I will write more, and try to stick to Lane’s words, going forward. Hope that helps.
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 10:17 am
Andrew B., (re: #471)
Your question presumes that I don’t understand what Sproul says in the video you embedded. I do, however, understand what Sproul is saying there. The problem, however, is that he misrepresents the Catholic position.
In describing the Catholic doctrine, Sproul says:
When he says that according to Catholic doctrine God declares a person righteous only if that person is righteous within, he is correct. We discussed this already in the “List Paradigm Versus Agape Paradigm” thread. But when he says that according to Catholic doctrine a person is not just before God unless, in addition to the faith and grace he has received within from Christ he must add his own contribution, he caricatures the Catholic position. The person coming up out of the baptismal font is already completely just; he does not then need to do something to add his own contribution in order to make himself fully just before God. Moreover, any good thing he subsequently does in a state of grace, by which he grows in grace and faith and agape and righteousness, is not accurately described as “his own contribution,” but is the grace of Christ within him, as St. Paul says, “On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.” (1 Cor 15:10)
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 10:50 am
Sure, Bryan. But why doesn’t Benedict tell me that himself? On the golf course? Your actions are causing harm. You need to repent of C2C. I will email you my thoughts. The forum within which we discuss is where much of the problem lies. IMHO. Peace.
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 10:57 am
Jason,
At #460, you wrote:
“But if it were possible to be entangled again in that yoke of bondage after having begun in the Spirit, then there’s no reason why the freedom gained from justification (and maybe even justification itself) can’t be forfeited (which seems to be Paul’s whole point: “Stand fast in your liberty, and don’t submit again to a yoke of bondage”).”
From that verse in particular, was Paul implying that a Christian can lose his/ her salvation? From the text (and indeed most of his epistles), we can see that Paul did not normally theologise or philosophise in the abstract — discoursing/ articulating in general terms and categories. He preached and here he was preaching to the Galatian churches (at least as the epistle was read out) concerning an existential problem that was confronting them. IOW, he did not speak about them; rather he spoke to them.
“Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
The contrast that Paul meant to make an impression on his hearers was precisely the sharp contrast — the antithesis — the irreconcilable tension — the dialetical opposition — between freedom and bondage which here in contextual terms concretised as Gospel and Law respectively. IOW, he wasn’t laying out a doctrine of apostasy as such although, yes, his preaching here does speak to the issue also.
1. The freedom “wherewith Christ hath made us free” – is at once both proclamation (preaching) and confession. We have been set free by Christ. There is no “quid pro quo”: Paul is preaching — he is not merely describing freedom in the abstract, he is not demanding that the Galatians be set free … no ultimatums, . Paul simply declares to them: You are free. No conditions; no requirements but you are already free. In other words, fait accompli — freedom is done. Full stop.
2. To be set free is simply to be freed — meaning that freedom is given; freedom is a gift. We are “passive” — not “active” — we did not set ourselves free but were set free by Christ — from the outside, extra nos. hence, the absolute contrast with the “yoke of bondage.”
3. In either case, to be freed/ free in/ by Christ necessarily implies being bound to Christ (or else there the contrast between freedom and bondage makes no sense) whereas to be bound to the Law necessarily implies the illusion of freedom (or the rest of the Galatians 5 makes no sense especially so in relation to FWTL).
4. Hence, it is highly unlikely Paul’s statement in Galatian 5:1 meant to entail the “defectibility” of the Christian. This would by itself undermine and disrupt Paul’s unqualified and unconditional emphasis on the antithesis between freedom and bondage. We were not freed by our own “will” — freedom is entirely Christ’s doing.
5. “Stand fast therefore in the liberty … and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage” – We were passive when Christ set us free from the Law completely, totally. We are *now* passive in Christ Who set us free from the Law. Therefore, to stand fast in the freedom – is simply what it is … *stand* … (not do this or do that) … *in* … the *liberty* … *wherewith* … CHRIST … hath made us … FREE — *passivity* all the way. IOW, just be what you *are* … free in Christ. Paul is rendering the Galatian congregations passive with this verse (the active part comes later – sequence). When one stands in the freedom of Christ, one can never be in bondage. It is impossible, therefore, for freedom to be “exchanged” for bondage. For the implication is much more unpalatable (to both Roman Catholics and Protestants alike), namely the defectibility of CHRIST.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2012 at 11:07 am
Bryan 487 (with respect to your response to Andrew Buckingham 471):
You said
He does no such thing. Here’s how you qualify that:
This is one reason why I have said in the past that you exercise “mental reservation”, that you are, in fact, dishonest.
You make the claim that Sproul “misrepresents the Catholic position,” and then you leave open the suggestion that Sproul is even somehow being dishonest, or that he doesn’t understand “the Catholic position”.
In fact, Sproul does not misrepresent anything. He in fact does a fine and succinct job here of articulating the Roman Catholic system in a sound-bite.
The Roman Catholic system is such a convoluted mess that your statement is true about the person coming up out of the baptismal font being perfectly just at that moment.
But here at that point you exercise mental reservation, in that you fail to mention that if this is an adult, this person MUST attend mass (and adhere to all the other “precepts of the church”) — in addition to any “work” that person may or must do — THAT PERSON’s “WORK” IS TO *DO* THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH. And if this person fails to attend Mass, for example, that person is condemned in the Roman system.
Sproul is completely correct, if we assume that that person up out of the baptismal font lives another day or another week or another year (which is not an unreasonable assumption) in saying that “added to that faith, added to that grace, added to that Christ, must be the contribution of John Ankerberg, without which God will not declare you just.
YOU MUST do something else, if you live after baptism, if you are to remain in that “state of grace”.
Your portrayal of Sproul here is reprehensible.
johnbugay said,
August 26, 2012 at 11:10 am
Bryan Cross’s 487 is a very clear example of the Roman Catholic practice of “mental reservation”, which is what is rightly called “Rome’s institutionally-sanctioned form of lying”.
Bryan Cross and Mental Reservation
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 11:48 am
Galatians 5 follows on from Paul’s earlier preaching on the Law and Promise … hence, verse 1: “Stand fast *therefore* in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”
As Paul declared in Galatians 4:28: “Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.” That is the promise of the Word of God — Who became Incarnate by the Virgin Mary.
“What saith Scripture (Word of God)? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free” (Gal 4:30-31). Heir — inheritance — by the promise.
However, Paul knew that he was not only preaching to Christians (to the baptised) but also to converts from the old religion for whom circumcision was a pre-eminent sign of God’s covenant with them. Thus, the converts brought with them old religious habits and customs not least circumcision. Paul had to drive home the point, therefore, that there was *no* return to the old ways. How could it be? They have been set free by CHRIST.
But of course, the question from the perspective of the “third party” — the so-called “interpreter” … is it possible for salvation to be lost/ forfeited? Is final apostasy possible?
There are two perspectives or paradigms: the “Christ-paradigm” and the “Law paradigm.” The Christ-paradigm (christological, evangelical) is epitomised by the phrase, “in Christ”; the Law paradigm is the paradigm of free-will (including grace-enabled, Spirit-wrought). In Christ presuppose and implies “passivity”/ “receptivity” … Christ alone is the Subject. Freedom is complete and total or else it’s not freedom but bondage all over again. The Law paradigm emphasises synergy/co-operation.
From the perspective of the Christ-paradigm, since freedom is complete and total — it is irreversible — this is what the patristics (especially St irenaeus) referred as “recapitulatio” (recapitulation). This “summing, gathering up” of all things is irresistible. The Law-paradigm undermines recapitulatio since there is some distance (diastema) which Jesus “has not covered” hence movement on my part towards the Good. Reformation discovery was that JESUS overcomes all distance *for you*. The Incarnation contradicts all “heaven-ward” movement since God came down to earth to die once and for all. His death was to “redeem us that were under the law” (Gal 4:5). To be redeemed from the Law is to turn our backs to (leave behind) the Law — forever. IOW, there is no turning back.
The two paradigms therefore cannot be reconciled … just freedom and bondage are at odds with each other with no compromise … Christ-paradigm and Law-paradigm cannot be mixed without undermining Pauline preaching. That is, the distinction between Law and Gospel, freedom and bondage will be lost.
Thus, pastorally whilst Christians do fall away finally, the mystery is not why they fell and others persevered, but why they were never in Christ in the first place — to which we can never know on this side of the eschaton. Otherwise, it’s all Law over all again … do this and it’s never done.
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 11:52 am
Jason L. (#489)
Perfect freedom in Christ includes the ability never possibly to sin. But believers do not enjoy that perfect freedom until the age to come. In this present life, says St. Augustine, believers are able not to sin (posse non peccare), but in the life to come we will be unable to sin (non posse peccare). So the freedom we have now under grace is a shadow of the freedom we will have in glory. That is why from the fact that we are freed in Christ it does not follow that we are already, in this present life, bound to Christ such that we cannot fall away temporarily or permanently.
That is true for the saints in glory, but again, believers on earth do not yet have the perfect freedom of the saints in glory. Claiming otherwise would be an example of over-realized eschatology.
For faith healers (of the Hagin, Hinn, and Copeland sort), sickness and disease in the bodies of believers during this present life would imply a defect in the work of Christ (or our failure to appropriate the benefits offered to us right now, through His work). But the Catholic Church does not share that belief. Nor do Catholics believe that the difference between the perfection enjoyed by believers on earth and the perfection enjoyed by the saints in heaven entails some sort of defect in the work of Christ. This present life, during which we see through a glass darkly, and must go through all sorts of sufferings and trials to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and “pummel” our bodies lest after preaching to others we ourselves are not approved, is part of Christ’s perfect plan, not a defect or deficiency in His redemptive work.
So for these reasons, the fact that in his epistle to the Galatians St. Paul refers to the liberty the Galatian Christians enjoy in Christ does not entail that they are bound to Christ in such a way that they can never permanently fall away from Christ.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:00 pm
Dear Bryan,
You wrote:
“Perfect freedom in Christ includes the ability never possibly to sin. But believers do not enjoy that perfect freedom until the age to come. In this present life, says St. Augustine, believers are able not to sin (posse non peccare), but in the life to come we will be unable to sin (non posse peccare). So the freedom we have now under grace is a shadow of the freedom we will have in glory. That is why from the fact that we are freed in Christ it does not follow that we are already, in this present life, bound to Christ such that we cannot fall away temporarily or permanently.”
It’s only true if grace is a “repair job” – if I may put it – whereby grace is infused to a “continuous existing subject.” But the baptismal language of Paul is death & resurrection – the Christ-paradigm, if I may put it. You have already died, Paul goes on to say. In other words, the death of the Old Adam and the resurrection of the New Adam. Two persons, not one, who are irreconcilable, existential tension on this side of the eschaton. of course it’s not just this type of realist language which Paul preaches in Romans but also Philippians where he claims to have attain and not attain the resurrection from the dead, perfect and yet not perfect … the simul which Luther “rediscovered.”
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:03 pm
“That is true for the saints in glory, but again, believers on earth do not yet have the perfect freedom of the saints in glory. Claiming otherwise would be an example of over-realized eschatology.”
I suppose over-realised eschatology is where the Pope claims to be the one holy apostolic and catholic Church.
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:05 pm
John B. (re: #490)
If my failing to mention that believers must then work out their salvation in fear and trembling constitutes “mental reservation,” then Sproul’s failure to mention that believers must always avoid repeating any of the sins mentioned in 1 Cor 6:9-10 (and always avoid becoming Catholic), lest it be shown that they never had faith in the first place, likewise constitutes “mental reservation.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Bryan,
You further wrote:
“For faith healers (of the Hagin, Hinn, and Copeland sort), sickness and disease in the bodies of believers during this present life would imply a defect in the work of Christ (or our failure to appropriate the benefits offered to us right now, through His work). But the Catholic Church does not share that belief. Nor do Catholics believe that the difference between the perfection enjoyed by believers on earth and the perfection enjoyed by the saints in heaven entails some sort of defect in the work of Christ. This present life, during which we see through a glass darkly, and must go through all sorts of sufferings and trials to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven, and “pummel” our bodies lest after preaching to others we ourselves are not approved, is part of Christ’s perfect plan, not a defect or deficiency in His redemptive work.”
Yes, miracles performed by saints (before they were “sainted” of course) imply that the Roman Catholic Church share the same presuppositions with the faith healers on the work of Christ, namely “seeing is believing” rather than “believing is seeing.”
“So for these reasons, the fact that in his epistle to the Galatians St. Paul refers to the liberty the Galatian Christians enjoy in Christ does not entail that they are bound to Christ in such a way that they can never permanently fall away from Christ.”
Then I’m afraid Christ is of none effect for the apostate Christian, Galatians 5:4. Either way, the “cause” or “reason” for the permanent departure from the Faith must be sought IN CHRIST, not “free-will.”
Jason Loh said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:13 pm
“the Pope claims to be the one holy apostolic and catholic Church.”
where the Roman Catholic Church claims to be identical to the one, holy, apostolic and catholic Church. And where the Pope claims to be Vicar of Christ and by implication Head of the Body of Christ (here on earth).
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Bryan Cross wrote:
But Benedict XVI wrote:
When Sproul says it, it’s a “caricature.” When Benedict XVI says it, what is it?
Let Trent judge between Bryan and Benedict: Having, therefore, been thus justified, and made the friends and domestics of God, advancing from virtue to virtue, they are renewed, as the Apostle says, day by day; that is, by mortifying the members of their own flesh, and by presenting them as instruments of justice unto sanctification, they, through the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified, as it is written; He that is just, let him be justified still; and again, Be not afraid to be justified even to death; and also, Do you see that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. And this increase of justification holy Church begs, when she prays, “Give unto us, O Lord, increase of faith, hope, and charity.”(Trent, On Justification, Chapter X, “On the Increase of Justification Received”)
And in the Tridentine model, co-operation is not just a contribution to the increase, it’s also implicated here:
(Trent, Canons IV and IX on Justification)
Source for Benedict XVI statement:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070607_corpus-christi_en.html
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:23 pm
TF,
You rock the house.
Tell me you golf,
Andrew
PS maybe you are a runner? My fingers are ties (like hand over mouth in Job 40…less talk, more golf!)
Bryan Cross said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:30 pm
TF, (re: #499)
That’s another good example of the word-concept fallacy. Of course it is useful, rhetorically, but it is not a good faith practice.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Bryan:
Golf?
Wanna go jogging?
Maybe not on Sunday. Really, you should not be commenting.
Oh…right. You abandoned the reformed faith and the WCF. Well, I not perfect either, but should you be in church?
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:43 pm
BC:
Just asserting that something is a “word concept fallacy” doesn’t make it one. Maybe if you took the time to read the whole comment and then reconsider your ill-advised accusation against Sproul, you could provide a more reasonable answer.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm
‘Nuf said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNrvUZogjho
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2012 at 12:51 pm
BC wrote:
This is an invalid comparison. Works are part of justification in Roman theology, and they are not in Reformed theology. Sproul’s failure to mention the epistemological value of works is not equivalent to your failure to mention the soteriological value of works.
Such an omission takes on the appearance of being deceptive when the question is whether, in Roman theology as opposed to Reformed theology, believers provide a contribution to their salvation. By contrast, in the same context there is nothing deceptive about failing to note the revelatory aspect of works.
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Ah-ha! I get it. Wow, there really are professional bloggers and commenters. I see some GB folk have taken up the call and are asking questions over at C2C. Ok, fellas, I gotta run. I’m really sorry for just asking over and over and over what all you all are doing out here in comment boxes. I’ve been a Christian my whole life, and am now 30. I never would have dreamed that Christianity is the comment box of a blog. But so be it. I will remain befuddled. Just consider that maybe it’s the ones not blogging and commenting, but actually away from the computer (DOING WHO KNOWS WHAT TO ADVANCE THE GOSPEL) that explains this internet blogging and commenting enterprise. The C2C people should get that – the are all about works righteousness and stuff. So I’m not saying that. But if you really, REALLY are convinced that God is using YOU to advance the Gospel in a combox, well then, my friend, fire away and hit post one more time. People should know my hobbies by now, who have been reading my drivel (maybe not all of it is?!?). But I seriously did not know how far the rabbit hole went.
I think I just took the red pill, folks,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:01 pm
PS that pill of coming to reality looks a lot like the Bible that I will crack open, and read, this morning. And like the prayer that I will engage in. And like the church service where the Word is preach and sacraments administered.
Or just stick to the language as it put so well:
http://www.shortercatechism.com/resources/wsc/wsc_088.html
Jeff Cagle said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:01 pm
Bryan, the problem here is that you are saying that both faith and baptism are the cause of justification.
Break it down in time: At what point in time is the believer cleansed from sin? At the moment of faith, or at the moment of baptism? There’s your proximate cause. This has nothing to do with “Protestant presuppositions.”
Jeff Cagle said,
August 26, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Bryan: Your argument here presupposes that the conditions for justification under the New Covenant must be identical to (or at least nothing more than) the conditions for justification under the Abrahamic covenant, or even prior to the Abraham covenant.
It’s not a presupposition. It’s a direct teaching of Romans 4. Abraham is the pattern of our justification.
TurretinFan said,
August 26, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Jeff #508:
Keep in mind that in Tridentine theology, faith is infused at baptism. That makes no sense in Pauline theology, but it is what it is.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 27, 2012 at 12:07 am
All:
Just a quick word about paradigms. Someone here recently observed that they’d read what I’ve written, and that nothing I have said necessitates the Catholic interpretation of the doctrines and texts we’ve been considering together. I would agree. The purpose of thinking about things on the paradigm level is not necessarily to demolish all other alternatives, for often a book like Galatians can be cogently understood in varying ways through differing paradigms.
My point in all this is simply to try to deduce the big, underlying ideas that gave rise to the texts, rather than to merely decode the texts themselves. For example, I trust that every single one of us can read James on justification by works, or Jesus on the last judgment, or Paul on what will happen on the last day for the doer of the law, and fit those passages into our theology. That’s easy. But it doesn’t really get us anywhere, since people with diametrically opposed views on certain things can both read the same texts from which their views supposedly arose and agree with them.
The harder, and more interesting, and less comfortable question is not, “How do I fit this verse into my theology?”, but “What previously-held views on the part of the author would have given rise to a statement like this?” and, “Would someone who holds the views I do ever think to say something like that?”
This gets to the heart of one of my own struggles over the past several years. I just began to come across more and more passages in Scripture that, while they could fit into my theology, were things that someone holding my theology just would never think to say.
On the other hand, the basics of Catholic teaching on issues like the nature of the church and the nature of salvation, in my view, would give rise very naturally to the actual statements we find in the Bible. Thus there is more explanatory power within the Catholic paradigm than there is in the Reformed one. I expect most of you will disagree (which is fine with me), but I just wanted to make sure you all know where I am coming from.
Brad B said,
August 27, 2012 at 3:12 am
Jason, @ 511, completely agree with you, the nature of creatures and the nature of God separate the Roman Catholic from the Reformed from the first / foundational premise and the paradigms that go with each foundation. I spent some time going back through “Whose Lens Are You Using” and scanned your posts, and found that your tone was pretty sympathetic to the Roman view even 2-3 years ago. I wonder how you viewed Sovereignty back then? What did Rom. 9 speak to you?
I think you know that Reformed systematic theology is much richer than the 5 points of Calvinism, but those 5 points put in place a paradigm to view the scriptures that give the Reformed more “explanatory power” but at the cost of the pride of man.
How do you understand Sovereignty in the Roman system? My suspicion is that the RCC doesn’t start with Sovereignty but works backward to form a view that is categorizing man in a place where he doesn’t belong to avoid making God seem too controlling. I dont know, maybe I’m completely out of touch with Roman thought on this.
johnbugay said,
August 27, 2012 at 6:04 am
Jason, 511m when you talk of the Catholic paradigm having more “explanatory” power, there are a couple of things to note.
First, the “Catholic Paradigm” makes it a point to scour the sources for things that can explain Catholic dogma. This quote from Aiden Nichols, “The Shape of Catholic Theology” (253) notes that for the last several hundred years, according to these popes:
The real criterion to use is not “explanatory power”. Roman Catholicism self-selects for “explanatory power”. Walter Kasper (now a Cardinal) has traced the origins of this method to the 18th century. So “explanatory power” is not really the criterion to use here. Roman Catholicism writes its history and theology with an eye toward “explanatory power”.
The thing to look for is “what really happened?” What really happened at the very beginning, and what was it like being a part of that church?
You said (511):
Even in this thread, I noted many reasons why the letters of Paul are the place to start with Christian doctrine. Paul wrote earlier, and the things he wrote, he was already teaching in his churches, on his missionary trips in the 40’s and 50’s. And, the things he wrote in his letters are corroborated in Acts. That is, Paul’s letters count as evidence.
Thus, at this point, at the point the Gospels are being written (if you assume in the later 50’s or early 60’s), you’ve already got a body of doctrinal evidence in Paul. Paul is traveling around, founding and teaching churches, and learning of their struggles, and writing to them as to how to deal with their struggles, and in the process, he writes Romans and Galatians. He is certainly highly capable of integrating Christ’s teaching with the covenant theology that the first century Jews held.
Earlier in this thread, I noted many reasons why the letters of Paul are the place to start with Christian doctrine. Paul wrote earlier, and the things he wrote, he was already teaching in his churches, on his missionary trips in the 40’s and 50’s. And, the things he wrote in his letters are corroborated in Acts.
Thus, at this point, at the point the Gospels are being written (if you assume in the later 50’s or early 60’s), you’ve already got a body of doctrinal evidence in Paul. Paul is traveling around, founding and teaching churches, and learning of their struggles, and writing to them as to how to deal with their struggles, and in the process, he writes Romans and Galatians. They certainly want and need to know, “how does this work?” And Paul, having been theologically trained, is certainly highly capable of integrating Christ’s teaching with the covenant theology that the first century Jews held. Especially when they ask about it, or when he perceives a need.
[I don’t need to remind you that Galatians was one of Paul’s earliest letters. Once he writes that, and maybe clarifies and extends his remarks in Romans, he never again needs to “re-invent the wheel”. He can and does refer people to his other letters.
It just so happens that the church did not have its “Catholic” identity from the beginning. Any “early catholicism” dates clearly from the second century. The first century church rose up out of the Synagogues. And it just so happens, there has been quite a bit of research on what the Synagogues structure was like. And when Paul was kicked out of the Synagogues, he went to the Gentiles, and almost always, this involved house churches.
There is an incredible amount of documentation on this:
Roman Background: What the City was Like in the First Century
Augustus Caesar as Pontifex Maximus
the Roman mindset
Leadership structures in the Synagogues:
Elders Chairs Prologue
Elders Teachers Chairs 1
Elders Teachers Chairs 2
Elders Teachers Chairs 3
Elders Teachers Chairs 4
Introduction Households and House Churches in the New Testament
The nonexistent early papacy
House Churches in the New Testament
Households in Ancient Rome
Part 1: Households in Ancient Rome: An Introduction
Part 2: Christians and Jews in First Century Rome
Part 3: Commerce and Household Communities
Aquila, Priscilla, and the accurate history of Acts 18.2
Part 4: Household Leadership as Church Leadership
Part 5: Patronage and Leadership
The People of Romans 16
Aquila, Priscilla, Acts 18:2 and the Edict of Claudius
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, διάκονον and προστάτις”
Andronikos and Junia, Part 1
Andronikos and Junia, Part 2
I won’t ask you to read all of this (I hope you’ll read some of it), but the thing that happens when I bring this stuff up is that Roman Catholics will say “that’s not wholly incompatible with the Catholic paradigm”. Well, that may be true, at some points, but it is wholly compatible with the notion that Roman Catholicism existed at the beginning, in “seed form” or otherwise.
But what I will tell you, it’s wholly compatible with what actually happened, and it’s wholly compatible with the Reformed view of what the earliest church – this is a very good compendium of what “the Church that Christ Founded®” actually taught and believed, and how they worshipped and otherwise conducted themselves.
Second and third century developments are also “wholly compatible” with this picture of the earliest church, and it’s no accident that someone like Dom Chapman begins his work with a look at the fourth century church. He had absolutely nothing to bite on, and I’d dare say that Adrian Fortescue’s work on Clement and Ignatius has been wholly discredited as a historical source in the historical studies that have come out in the century or so since these two individuals wrote about the “early papacy”.
The earliest church that I’ve presented here is wholly compatible with the facts as they exist. Wholly compatible with the history of ancient Rome. Wholly compatible with the historical evidence provided in the New Testament. Wholly compatible with the Reformed understanding of how the earliest church functioned.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:10 am
You are smart, Jason, and you knew going Roman Catholic would cause a stir. Maybe you couldn’t have seen that the nutty OPC golfer from Nor-Cal would all of the sudden start chiming in. But I have been reading your blog posts from before 2010. You really should recant those. Something did change, Jason, and even though I am new, I still think I should be able to figure out just what changed. I don’t think its as easy as saying you now read your Bible differently than Calvin and the reformers. Sure, I will take you at your word. Something just doesn’t seem right to me. I will be reading. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:56 am
ps i sent you some emails, jason. i would like to share private correspondence with you someday in the future. until then, andrew
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:12 am
JJS:
A few thoughts on your comment #511:
a) One reason why ancient authors and even Biblical authors say things differently than we might today is that they were not framing their comments in light of the controversies that arose after their writing.
So, for example, because of the innovation of transubstantiation today we might be extra careful to make it clear that the (“this is my body”) metaphor is a metaphor.
b) While the framework for understanding the apostolic writings is important, it is something one can derive from the Scriptures. In other words, the easily understood historical parts of the Gospels and Acts illuminate the more difficult to understand theological statements, both in those works and in Paul’s epistles. Likewise, the clear theological statements in Paul’s epistles help to illuminate the allusions to theological points in the Gospels and Acts.
In other words, the New Testament is not simply grist for an external mill: it contains its own system of understanding.
c) And this is the very reason for inscripturation. See John’s reasons for inscripturation:
John 20:31
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.
1 John 5:13
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
It is also more theologically explained by Paul:
1 Timothy 3:15-17
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
You see, the Scriptures explain their own purpose and that purpose then provides the framework by which we can understand and interpret them.
The difference between the eisegetical methods of Cross and company (in which a “paradigm” not taught in Scripture is imposed on Scripture) and the more pure exegetical methods we champion is a significant one.
Our methodology has the advantage of the authority of the text itself (an authority granted by both sides). Moreover, our methodology is not only the dominant one amongst the free churches of the modern era, but also the apparently dominant one amongst the orthodox fathers of both east and west. Even most of the ancient heretics accepted this methodology in principle. An exception would be groups like the Gnostics. As I wrote:
See more discussion here:
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/07/gnosticism-hermeneutics-and-rome.html
– TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 11:06 am
Wow, TF. Thanks. I need to read more at your blog. And comment less. As for this, TF:
“The difference between the eisegetical methods of Cross and company”
The problem I see, is that with him, it seems to all come down to word-concept fallacy this, and question begging that. I mean it – when I have discussed with atheists on the internet, I’m always the circular theist, claiming God exists because, well, he says so in His Word, the Bible (Heb 11:6):
http://www.esvbible.org/search/heb+11%3A6/
I’m not calling Cross and company atheists, far from it, and I appreciate their appeals to logic. But really, they need to read Van Til:
http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=/apologetics/why_I_believe_cvt.html
Van Til is admitting here, he’s “circular.” Because his thoughts center around God.
I really wish Cross and company would stop stirring up strife in our reformed blogs. Keep ’em coming, ask away. But the more you post comments here, you Roman Catholics, the more apparent your system appears weak and flawed. I would encourage you to e-mail reformed pastors, or try the OPC Q&A. There’s many many people who want to help, for those that truly want help. This forum looks like a place for mostly stirring up strife. It’s why I want everyone to take a week off, and for Lane to call a cease fire. It looks really bad to the unbelieving world, people. Maybe let’s go to Jeff Cagle’s blog and read about butterflies. Seriously folks, everyone needs a chill pill (especially me…running seems to get my stress down) and just kind of reflect on all that’s gone on. Yeah, it’s a big deal, to lose one of our ministers to the RC Church. But it should be no surprise. Seriously, nothing to see here. Move along.
But we should keep praying for Mr. Stellman and his family.
Peace,
AB
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 11:11 am
PS and along with my call for a cease fire…a “Christmas Truce,” I would urge to you read this blog post from 2006 by Dr. Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary. It’s mainly just a fun read. But basically, the C2C folks take themselves WAAAAYYYYY to seriously. We’re out here, and they come over here, because we’re just more fun. They love us. Let’s outdo them in showing love, people.
http://www.reformation21.org/counterpoints/post-46.php
Later,
Andrew
Bryan Cross said,
August 27, 2012 at 12:04 pm
Jeff (re: #508)
Your criticism of the Catholic doctrine begs the question here because your assumption that if x causes y at time t, then z does not cause y at t, is not part of the Catholic paradigm. But you need that assumption in order to conclude that (a) if Catholic doctrine teaches that a person is justified at the moment he is baptized, then it is not true that he is justified by living faith, or (b) if Catholic doctrine teaches that a person is justified at the moment of living faith, then it is not true that he is justified by baptism. And you need (a) or (b) in order to support your notion that if St. Paul says in Galatians that justification is by faith, then for St. Paul baptism is not a cause of justification. But as I pointed out above, the notion that “if x causes y at time t, then z does not cause y at t” is something even your own paradigm rejects, because it would mean that at the moment a person is being justified by faith, Christ is not causing that person’s justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew McCallum said,
August 27, 2012 at 1:26 pm
Jason (re: 511),
My point in all this is simply to try to deduce the big, underlying ideas that gave rise to the texts, rather than to merely decode the texts themselves.
Just a quick observation – One of the challenges in the comparison of Catholic and Protestant theological paradigms is that they are generally formed using different sets of data. This is obvious when we discuss something like The Assumption. It is less pronounced when speak of competing paradigms of justification, but no less of a problem. The specific formulations of the doctrine of justification in the Medieval era were not governed and delimited by considerations of the exegesis of certain Greek texts. There is a much broader set of theological concepts that the Medieval theologians drew upon to define what became the range of accepted theological paradigms leading up to Trent.
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 1:36 pm
Re: #519…
And now for something completely different… or is it really the same?
OK, nobody said that in order to participate in this debate that math (i.e algebra and geometry) would be required.
With all the x causes y at “t” time, no wonder z doesn’t cause y… because z doesn’t know “y”! He’s too confused.
Truly a – Maze – ing stuff…
– from the lighter side.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 27, 2012 at 1:46 pm
T-Fan and Bugay,
Couple thoughts. I find it interesting, John, that your reasons why Paul’s writings should be central (they are earliest) is the exact opposite of VanDrunen’s argument for the same conclusion (his writings are the final word). For my part, I think it is irresponsible either to ignore Paul on the one hand, or to exalt a mere two of his letters unduly above the rest of the NT, on the other. My goal is to neither pay him too little attention nor too much.
And T-Fan, you speak of the need to avoid eisegesis by sticking to the details of the texts themselves. Well, I don’t think anyone here can accuse me of not caring or arguing about the details of the texts of the Bible. But if you believe that systematic theology is a legitimate discipline of theology (which I assume you do), then just think of what I am trying to do as sort of like that. Only rather than just culling together a doctrine of baptism from the texts, I am first asking what prior-held understanding of baptism would most likely give rise to the statements in the texts.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Well, JSM, really, all BC is saying is, is he is refuting a claim.
Seems like a rhetorical flourish to me…maybe showmanship?
It’s cool. Because, yes, math is not required, nor logic. Just an internet connection. Fortunately, we’ve got math people in Protestantism. It’s a piece of cake :-) We’re not all lining up quite yet to swim the tiber, even if they truly have a dizzying intellect. :-)
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 27, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Andrew,
That’s why I keep talking about “the basics of the Catholic understanding of the church and the gospel.” Whether there is such a thing as development, and how legitimate development can be recognized as such, and all that, is stuff we’ll have to get to eventually. But I think it would be tragic to short-cut the discussion with a question like, “What about the assumption?” or “What’s up with the treasury of merit?” Not that you’re doing that, but I’m just saying that both Catholics and Protestants believe that the rudimentary elements of their theology were there in the preaching and teaching that led to the writing of the NT, right? So it seems best to focus on that before we allow things to get more complex.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 2:05 pm
Yeah, Jason (I know you are not talking to me).
They were laid down in the OT.
Which is precisely where an RC is unable to explain the office of pope.
I know it’s not that easy. But Christ is seen in Genesis 3:15. There is an unfolding of the plan of redemption. Graeme Goldsworthy might help here…(and he’s Anglican – gasp!).
Peace.
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Hi Jason,
I don’t know that Paul’s writings being the earliest and also being the final word are exclusive of one another.
And I don’t see how Romans and Galatians, as a greater or lesser percentage of the New Testament, really advances anyone’s argument. Obviously not all letters or the Gospels were addressing the issues addressed in R and G. And R and G specifically address how a sinner is saved from his sin and is accepted as righteous before a holy God. And those letters, being Scripture which major on the doctrine of justification, rightly inform those other portions of Scripture, such as James. Of course, I know you know the argument.
I just don’t see a case from Scripture for an ongoing-justification-lens, especially when R and G make a clear case, in my view, against it, i.e. they present a one-time Justification through faith in Christ apart from works.
Additionally, I think it can be argued that Scripture presents the work of the Holy Spirit as that which strengthens the believer’s faith in Christ’s death and resurrection, which trust in Christ sanctifies or cleanses our otherwise dead works (Romans and Hebrews), making them works acceptable to God in Him. So then, the righteousness of Christ which is by faith both cleanses and sanctifies. And, our sanctification, as the work of the Holy Spirit, follows from the established ground our justification through faith in Christ’s finished work.
Any way, just my two cents from the back row…
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 3:07 pm
Question:
If a believer is already made righteous, ala Rome, through infused righteousness by baptism, then what does this verse mean or point to?
Likewise, if the believer is reckoned righteous by faith in Christ, i.e. Christ’s righteousness is imputed to him by faith, then what does the following mean?
For we through the Spirit by faith wait for the hope of righteousness. (Gal. 5:5)
For me, this beats math…
TurretinFan said,
August 27, 2012 at 3:43 pm
JJS #524:
The whole dogma of the Assumption is this: “we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.”
That’s an allegation regarding what would be a simple historical fact. It doesn’t even resolve the question of whether Mary died or didn’t die. It just alleges that she was assumed bodily into heaven at the end of her time on earth.
You wrote: “Not that you’re doing that, but I’m just saying that both Catholics and Protestants believe that the rudimentary elements of their theology were there in the preaching and teaching that led to the writing of the NT, right? So it seems best to focus on that before we allow things to get more complex.”
I’m not sure that one can get much simpler than the Assumption, though. In other words, it’s not like there were rudimentary elements of Mary’s assumption in the NT. What I mean is that this not like justification – where Trent is supposedly providing lots of theological nuance about about a complex theological topic.
The only thing that makes the assumption less than ideal as a topic of discussion is that we (Reformation Christianity) don’t think it is heresy to believe that Mary was assumed – we just treat it as heresy to elevate that (very late) human tradition to the level of gospel, as though men were required to believe it.
-TurretinFan
Zrim said,
August 27, 2012 at 4:51 pm
The harder, and more interesting, and less comfortable question is not, “How do I fit this verse into my theology?”, but “What previously-held views on the part of the author would have given rise to a statement like this?” and, “Would someone who holds the views I do ever think to say something like that?”
This gets to the heart of one of my own struggles over the past several years. I just began to come across more and more passages in Scripture that, while they could fit into my theology, were things that someone holding my theology just would never think to say.
It’s an interesting perspective (though, as you seem to allow, the explanatory power of Protestantism can beat for others that of Catholicism, which can leave everybody staring at each other).
But it just still seems to have so much Protestantism about it, i.e. using a fair bit of private judgment, i.e. squaring up MY theology with the Bible. So I can’t help but wonder what a Bryan Cross would have to say about it. Nothing so far that I am aware of, which confirms my basic sense that the apologetic paradigm is: when someone uses his faculties to read the Bible and arrives at Catholic conclusions, it’s kosher. But when he does the same and arrives at Protestant conclusions, he’s not simply wrong but has made himself his own autonomous authority. And so Cross and others who take this tack read very much like the theomomists who say there is only theonomy or autonomy. Where is the middle button? And much like the way the revivalists accused their confessionalist critics of being unconverted, without a more charitable taxonomy of right and wrong, how does one have any chance to respond when any pushback is understood to flow from degeneracy or autonomy? How is this game not rigged?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Jason,
I want to clarify something potentially provocative, that I said, in comment 514.
“Something just doesn’t seem right to me.”
I have grave reservations about how we are handling theological truth in these blogs and comments. Maybe you are all seminary trained, and what you all are doing is simply over my head.
But for me, to jump in, and see all that is going on (I would have never known who you were, if not for someone who read a Christology book that I liked, recommended I check his blog, one thing leads to another, etc etc) in the thick of it, it has been eye opening, to say the least.
I’m as guilty as anyone here, if there is a problem with engaging people over theological matters, in this way. Just what’s worth knowing is that I am taking all that I read and learn about what is going on, in these forums, to my local church leadership. That doesn’t mean anything is going to happen, or that you should stop. I’m not a tattle tale. But as someone who enjoys learning theology, this is an interesting wrinkle in my learning process, to find you, and all you bloggers, doing what you do, and how you do it.
Not saying anything, other than, acknowledging that learning how theology is done over the internet, has been an experience.
Peace
AB
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 5:32 pm
Does everyone know BC is posting Ferguson and Sproul, and commenting? Check out BC:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/#comment-37213
Andrew McCallum said,
August 27, 2012 at 7:12 pm
Jason,
both Catholics and Protestants believe that the rudimentary elements of their theology were there in the preaching and teaching that led to the writing of the NT, right?
Right. But I just wanted to say (and maybe I’m just stating the obvious here) that this preaching and teaching that formed the foundation of the Christian faith (the “deposit of the faith” in Catholic verbiage) is the Scriptures for the Protestant, but includes the oral tradition of the Apostles for the Catholic.
So it seems best to focus on that before we allow things to get more complex..
So the “that” we are focusing on is not entirely the same for Protestant and Catholic, no?
dgwired said,
August 27, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Jason, by this standard, “What previously-held views on the part of the author would have given rise to a statement like this?” (#511), Eastern Orthodoxy makes more sense than Rome. At least with the Orthodox church you don’t have to do cartwheels to account for papal infallibility, which when you read the Bible, looks pretty far fetched.
Bob S said,
August 27, 2012 at 8:47 pm
519 But as I pointed out above, the notion that “if x causes y at time t, then z does not cause y at t” is something even your own paradigm rejects, because it would mean that at the moment a person is being justified by faith, Christ is not causing that person’s justification.
See also the same in 470 & 480
As in good grief, do the idiocies never cease?
Did it ever occur to the flim flam man that faith is in Christ after all?
IOW the prince of the exegetes still has to falsify the argument.
Falsify? Argument?
What are you talking about?
Didn’t you know? Faith, man, faith is the thing to drink for those whom it hurts to think.
sean said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Shoot, if we’re gonna compare paradigms and authority structure, particularly as it applies to the Jesus(gospels) vs. Pauline play going on. Let’s do ‘Treaty structure’ of the NT, which gives the protestant the ‘constitutional’ specifity of regard for the Pauline epistles, the historical preamble consideration of the gospels and the definitive authority of the NT canon that can’t be altered or added to by the vassal recipient(the community of faith or canonical community, whichever you prefer).
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Is that Roman Catholic language, Sean? Almost everything you mention,I’ve never heard of. Scratch that…I don’t recognize any of it.
Are you looking to discuss the protestant doctrine of Scripture? Have you heard of the Westminster Confession of Faith? I don’t mean to demean, its just, since finding that document in my own faith journey, I tend to make arguments along the lines that are delineated there. I can email you a link to chapter 1.
Its a good read,
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:41 pm
A little fresh breeze from Calvin, Book 4:
Here then is the difference. They place the authority of the Church without the word of God; we annex it to the word, and allow it not to be separated from it. And is it strange if the spouse and pupil of Christ is so subject to her Lord and master as to hang carefully and constantly on his lips?
and…
Hence Chrysostom most shrewdly observes, “Many boast of the Holy Spirit, but with those who speak their own it is a false pretence. As Christ declared that he spoke not of himself (John 12:50; 14:10), because he spoke according to the Law and the Prophets, so, if anything contrary to the Gospel is obtruded under the name of the Holy Spirit, let us not believe it. For as Christ is the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets, so is the Spirit the fulfillment of the Gospel” (Chrysost. Serm. de Sancto et Adorando Spiritu.)
Now back to the regularly scheduled programming…
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:50 pm
And…
In other words, if faith depends upon the word of God alone, if it regards and reclines on it alone, what place is left for any word of man? He who knows what faith is can never hesitate here, for it must possess a strength sufficient to stand intrepid and invincible against Satan, the machinations of hell, and the whole world. This strength can be found only in the word of God. Then the reason to which we ought here to have regard is universal: God deprives man of the power of producing any new doctrine, in order that he alone may be our master in spiritual teaching, as he alone is true, and can neither lie nor deceive. This reason applies not less to the whole Church than to every individual believer.
– Calvin
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Good words, JSM, if I can be so bold to state.
BC critiqued the RC Sproul link I put here on GB yesterday. My comment is “waiting moderation,” so instead, I posted my response to BC on my google+ post section.
I stated earlier that C2C deleted my comments. I think they may have put my comment back in, they just added it to my earlier comment. No biggee, but it does read weird.
Indeed. regularly scheduled programming, I think they are playing “Fletch.”
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:05 pm
Where’s Fletch when we need him? You can call me Jack.
;)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:07 pm
Thanks, Jack. I seriously haven’t seen it. But that will be solved tonight. Oh, and those C2C folk, they let my comment through. Sorry as always for my pervasive typos.
You are in a good denomination, the PCA. I need to learn to let up on you guys…
Grace and peace,
Andrew
sean said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:09 pm
Andrew B,
Jason will know what I’m talking about. I recommend to you Meredith Kline; Treaty of The Great King, Kingdom Prologue and The Structure of Biblical Authority. Set aside a few months and go slowly.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:10 pm
PS Santa Barbara, huh Jack?
If you know Doug Harley, pastor at El Camino OPC in Goleta, and you ever see him, tell him Andrew says hi.. and that I’ll take another gin martini anytime he wants to have me come by.
Presbyterians…sheesh :-)
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:10 pm
OPC, a Machen-man.
Jack
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:12 pm
I know Pastor Doug quite well. He is the pastor of our church. I will give him your greetings.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:18 pm
He was my first OP pastor from 2001 to 2004, when I was at UCSB. I visit that church often. Tell Jim, Mac, Al, Rinco, hello, from Andrew and Heather Buckingham. I’ll email Doug about all this GB stuff, he always likes hearing from me…peace.
jsm52 said,
August 27, 2012 at 10:25 pm
Pastor Doug is a good man and a faithful servant of God. I will pass on your greetings.
Bob S said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:30 am
Some things never change.
Over at Old Life on the Canonical Deism thread, the king of the philosophers and the prince of the exegetes has been so bold to patronize our credulity and inform us repeatedly that to appeal to Scripture is to presuppose protestantism before he finally took his bat and ball and stalked home in a huff.
Now a CtC intern(?) wants to avoid the “tragic shortcut” of discussing the treasury of merit or the assumption of Mary here.
(But didn’t the same thing also happen here on the Argument for the Papacy thread? Any attempt by protestants to appeal to Scripture, much more make a case that Scripture itself dictates the same was met with more table pounding, rote accusation and raw assertion that this was circular reasoning and begging the question.)
Still to repeat the obvious, when the Book of Romans is the clearest, longest and most detailed exposition of the gospel and after that Galatians, to balk and insist on the gospels or what? the Book of Jude as the controlling paradigm, much more some speculative scenario that neither contradicts or confirms the Scripture dreamt up in some post modernist graduate seminar is the position of a hypocritical and pious unbelief.
Further, no amount of buffalo breath, bullying or accusations of ad hoc ad hominens can deflect that.
Or links to long winded digressions masquerading as timely excursus over at CtC that in reality obscure the issue like a haystack a needle.
IOW carry on, Mr. Stellman. Keep pushing that rope of congruency into a straight line, please. As you suggest, we will have plenty of time to address further instances of Roman apostacy and declension later.
Bob S said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:37 am
much more some speculative scenario that neither contradicts or confirms the Scripture that might as well have been dreamt up in some post modernist graduate seminar instead of the mental bowels of the Roman hierarchy of naturally religious men, is the position of a hypocritical and pious unbelief.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 9:18 am
Fletch is a good movie, I found myself “lol-ing”
rhymes with “trolling”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc
mr. underhill…thanks green baggins, for quite a show :-)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 12:06 pm
“I recommend to you Meredith Kline”
Sean,
I’ve been meaning to get into Dr. Kline. I’ve heard good things, from people in my church who took his classes at WSCAL.
Peace.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 1:35 pm
Jack,
What do you think of the case I made from Romans, Hebrews, Genesis, and James? I think I addressed it to Jeff in the Response thread, and then I posted it again in this one.
It’s your view that that verse poses a problem for, for if the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to me once for all when I first exercise faith, then why would I need to express a “hope” that I will receive that righteousness in the future?
On the other hand, for a Catholic it makes perfect sense, for justification is something received initially and then subsequently grown in, until our final justification on the last day.
So again, the once-for-all imputation paradigm fails to explain the biblical data (or at least forces its adherents to accept a proposition from Paul that they themselves, because of their paradigm, would never think to say). I mean, if you have a statement from a sermon where the minister talks about hoping to receive Christ’s righteousness some time in the future, I’d love to hear it!
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 1:39 pm
Zrim,
Funny, I was taught for three years at WSC about the dangers of “biblicism,” which essentially meant any use of the Bible to come to the wrong conclusion! When the correct conclusions were reached, that was called “exegesis.”
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Interesting to hear about that, Jason.
Oh, and I’m learning what is and is not allowable over at C2C. Just so you know, Jason, I don’t think they let you talk Fletch over there…
great movie!
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 1:49 pm
Meaning, my comments, are being blocked.
Happy blogging, people!
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 1:51 pm
Andrew McC,
I had written, “… both Catholics and Protestants believe that the rudimentary elements of their theology were there in the preaching and teaching that led to the writing of the NT, right?” and you responded:
But we would both agree that, prior to the writing of any NT book (let alone the completion and recognition of the canon) there was apostolic preaching and teaching that, along with the OT, comprised the deposit of faith, yes?
Now, it would probably be way off-topic for me to ask you where from Scripture you get the idea that, once the last apostle died, all the oral teaching they gave the churches ceased to be a part of the deposit, so I’ll drop it.
So what? I am playing by your rules here, aren’t I? I have not appealed to any extra-canonical authorities, which is why your question is a red herring.
My point is very simple: The basics of the Catholic understanding of the gospel—justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love—is found in all the NT writers, and therefore it makes sense to see that summary as a working paradigm that the writers had when they wrote the NT in the first place.
Bob S said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:02 pm
552
It’s your view that that verse poses a problem for, for if the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to me once for all when I first exercise faith, then why would I need to express a “hope” that I will receive that righteousness in the future?
Somebody’s roman slip is showing,JJS. Again for the record, protestants believe in imputation, not,/b> infusion. Believers await that actual full righteousness in Christ upon their death and glorification.
Romanists already have it so they don’t have to wait for it.
Better recheck that infallible paradigm of yours again.
cheers
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:09 pm
But for the record, I was talking good about Sproul, not Fletch, at C2C. C2C needs to be exposed, more, for what they are doing. I’ll take all this to my church. Peace.
Bob S said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:11 pm
556 My point is very simple: The basics of the Catholic understanding of the gospel—justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love—is found in all the NT writers, and therefore it makes sense to see that summary as a working paradigm that the writers had when they wrote the NT in the first place.
The assertion is mistaken, not proven. Further “the basics of the Catholic understanding of the gospel—justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love—is found” in the heart of the sinful natural man, albeit religious.
Therefore it makes sense to see that summary as a working paradigm for the natural man when he reads the Scripture.
jsm52 said,
August 28, 2012 at 2:17 pm
Hey Jason,
– if the perfect righteousness of Christ is imputed to me once for all when I first exercise faith, then why would I need to express a “hope” that I will receive that righteousness in the future?
Actually, I think it makes perfect sense. The way I see it, the Roman Catholic isn’t so much by faith waiting for the hope of righteousness as cooperating and progressing to the final goal of attaining complete righteousness.
Whereas Paul is saying that, being justified by faith, we are now cleansed of our sins and clothed or covered with Christ’s perfect righteousness, which covering we receive and possess through faith in Him. I still sin and will continue to sin until the day I die. Yet by faith I stand secure before the throne of grace because Jesus my Advocate, by His sacrifice and merit, mediates my sin before that throne. Why the hope? That with the resurrection of the body, on that day when I see Him as He is, I shall be made like Him, i.e. confirmed in a righteousness which He purchased with His own blood.
Doxology:
And they sing a new song, saying, Worthy art thou to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and didst purchase unto God with thy blood men of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and madest them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests… (Rev. 5:9-10)
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Bob S,
I just thought you should know that it has literally been weeks since I even glanced at a single thing you’re written to me. Maybe your goal is to rally the troops behind you as you insult people with your mockery and snark, in which case, by all means proceed with your project. I’m sure Jesus is very proud.
But if your goal is to engage me, then I just thought I’d save you some time by letting you know that when I see your name, I just scroll on down. Your behavior gives this blog a bad reputation, which is why I only engage the people here who display a bit of Christianity toward me.
Oh, and whatever response you write? I’ll be ignoring that, too.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Jack,
Kind of like how Paul “pressed toward the goal so that, if possible, [he] may attain to the resurrection from the dead”? Either Paul’s self-description in Phil. 3 contradicts what he says in Gal. 5 about waiting for the hope of righteousness, or the two are not mutually exclusive (in which case your comment presents a false dilemma).
Zrim said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Funny, I was taught for three years at WSC about the dangers of “biblicism,” which essentially meant any use of the Bible to come to the wrong conclusion! When the correct conclusions were reached, that was called “exegesis.”
So Frame’s book really was “In Defense of Something Close to The Wrong Conclusion”? But that assessment seems to me a little cynical. The danger of Biblicism is to elevate the individual self above Scripture (the mirror error of elevating the collective self above it). But I think Protestants would acknowledge that it’s possible to employ Biblicism and still come to the right exegetical conclusion (or be Reformed and come to the wrong one), and that here is such a thing as Reformed narcissism, i.e. “I’m Reformed, I think X, therefore X is Reformed.” My point here is that Catholicism as Cross represents it doesn’t seem able to concede that there might be such a thing as Catholic eisegesis. Prots can admit we could be wrong, but to hear Cross tell it, it’s absolutely impossible over there. So I ask again, How is this whole discussion not rigged in your favor?
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:38 pm
Jack (re: #560)
In the agape paradigm, agape in us is ordered to union with the Beloved, because it is already a participation in the Beloved. So the hope of righteousness is the hope to be no longer seeing through a glass darkly, but face to face. Hence the saints long for His coming, saying maranatha; come Lord Jesus. In addition, we know that God is preparing a new dwelling and a new earth in which righteousness dwells (2 Pet 3:13). In this way, as we pray for His Kingdom to come, we are praying for the fullness of righteousness to cover the earth, when all creation is restored to its rightful order, injustice is removed from the earth, death is put away, creation no longer groans, concupiscence is removed, and even the possibility of sin is removed.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:43 pm
I would post on C2C as well, if not for being banned:
“What everyone is doing here is public. You have no idea who is reading these comments. Only an internet connection is required. When a person puts forth theological truth, without proper credentials being known, there is danger for great harm. Those that engage in “guys talking theology,” to me, evidence their disregard for the seriousness of the Truth that they, to me, so flippantly put aside, for reasons I do not yet know. Although, I think the main driver, is for people to be a showman about their learning. And I just wish people found better things to do with their time than stir up strife and potentially cause harm to unknown readers.”
Lane?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 3:53 pm
Zrim,
If I had attempted to demonstrate from Scripture that some tenet of the Reformed system of doctrine was wrong, I would have been warned about biblicism and reminded of the need to read the Bible through the lens of the WS/3FU. So essentially what biblicism meant was reading the Bible in such a way as to say that my fallible conclusions trumped the fallible conclusions of Calvin, Ursinus, or the Westminster Divines.
Steve, you can keep beating your favorite drums all you want, but I think that if you set aside your canned responses and actually let Bryan speak for himself, you’ll see they often miss the point.
Bryan has said hundreds of times over the past several years here that there is no charism protecting his own personal positions on anything, but that it is the official pronouncements of the Church that are so protected. And it’s not that his personal interpretations trump yours, it’s that all of ours are trumped by the teachings of the Church Christ founded.
This is off-topic, so I’ll give you the last word on this if you want it.
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:00 pm
Jason 566:
Tell me again how you know what this church looked like, back in the day? (Say, the 30s, 40s, and 50s AD?)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Knowledge of the power which creates and limits existence is not theoretical knowledge but is the knowledge which breaks in on us in critical moments of our existence itself. We never have it as a lasting possession or a latent insight; rather, it has to keep on making its way in the face of all temptations which continually arise out of existence, giving one the illusion that he is captain of his soul and master of his fate – even if by virtue of that very insight. Faith in God is continually being stifled by the cares of each day that lay hold of us, by wishes and plans, by the passions that drive us to pleasure, and from one pleasure to another; or by living together, which is always in danger of losing its real character as a community of free and solitary persons,
and of deteriorating into a clamor of voices weakening us and deceiving us about our solitariness,
a clamor in which we are distracted and lose ourselves and even join in it.
-Rudolf Bultmann, from essay, “The Crisis of Faith”
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:06 pm
John,
As I said to Zrim, that question is off-topic (which is why I said I’d drop the issue after he responds, if he wants to).
PS – I don’t identify the essence of the church by “what it looks like.”
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:08 pm
Andrew B.
It’s a reasonable question. In my particular case, I am a ruling elder in the PCA, seminary trained (Chesapeake and RTS DC); and I engage in this particular discussion because I believe it is good and right to defend Reformed doctrine in the face of Catholic attempts to convert our teaching elders.
I also feel some appreciation for Jason and would pull him back from the edge if possible — though it seems that I’m grabbing at his shirt hems on the way down.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Well, we in the OPC don’t operate this way.
Signing off,
Andrew
sean said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:14 pm
Zrim says;
“My point here is that Catholicism as Cross represents it doesn’t seem able to concede that there might be such a thing as Catholic eisegesis. Prots can admit we could be wrong, but to hear Cross tell it, it’s absolutely impossible over there. ”
Jason,
It doesn’t sound like Zrim’s going after Bryan’s personal interpretation, but how Cross rightly represents the magisterium’s position on it’s declarations and interpretations of the deposit. Seems like a fair rebut. I also concede that you’ve gotten pigeonholed as well at different times. But, that shouldn’t be used to marginalize Zrim’s point.
I also think it needs to be acknowledged that the answer to John Bugay’s question (#567) is no more and no less than an act of faith on your and Bryan’s part. In fact, it’s a supernaturally aided one from the RC paradigm. If not, it would lack the certainty that’s trying be put forth by the CTC crowd. I don’t share it, but if we’re going to talk paradigms that’s a rather large pivot point.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:20 pm
PS
“The best theology would need no advocates: it would prove itself.”
-Karl Barth
I’ll refrain from pulling out my Tillich, just yet. Peace.
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Zrim, (re: #563)
The Pharisees could have said the same to Jesus, “You claim to be the Son of God and all that, and therefore infallible and omniscient and stuff, so how is this whole discussion not rigged in your favor?” To which, apparently (given your presuppositions), Jesus would have had to respond, “You are so totally right. I’m being unfair, and unjust, rigging the discussion this way by attributing infallibility to myself. That would really handicap you in an exegetical debate with me. I’m sorry. I guess if we’re going to have a discussion about what Scripture means, and whether I am the Messiah promised in Scripture, I’m first going to have to concede that I’m fallible, and maybe not the Son of God.”
Of course the intelligent observer to this discussion will note that if Jesus were a charlatan, then his claim to be infallible would not rig the discussion, because it would not prevent the demonstration of his errors. On the other hand, if Jesus were in fact Who He claimed to be, then being unable to falsify His claims and positions is precisely what should be expected. The whole idea that Jesus must give up His claim to infallibility in order to have a ‘fair’ discussion with men presupposes that there can be no fair or just discussions between an infallible God and a fallible man. In other words, it presupposes atheism. But that’s not something a theist should concede in the first place, because it is a question-begging presupposition against the theist. So likewise, and for the same reason, the notion that one cannot have a ‘fair’ or ‘just’ discussion with a Church that claims to be infallible under certain conditions, is also a question-begging presupposition against the Catholic.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:45 pm
JJS: If I had attempted to demonstrate from Scripture that some tenet of the Reformed system of doctrine was wrong, I would have been warned about biblicism and reminded of the need to read the Bible through the lens of the WS/3FU.
I sure hope that’s not what’s being taught.
There is a crystal-clear distinction between deductive arguments from authority
(WS says the Bible says X, so the Bible says X)
and inductive arguments from authority
(WS says the Bible says X, and the WS is the collective wisdom of the church, so it has high likelihood of being right. Check your work and make an overture to Presbytery).
The former, the deductive argument, is wrong. It is a logical fallacy, and it usurps the authority of Scripture, because the WS is the final arbiter of truth.
The latter leaves place for Scripture to be the final word.
Jason, the whole notion of “who is the highest authority” is a mistake whose outcome is radical skepticism towards objective truth and radical fideism towards the Church. It is intellectually abusive, because the recipient of that argument is made to feel in rebellion against God for having the temerity to act like a Berean.
Think about it: Can a bad argument become good, just because the Church makes it? Can a good argument become bad, just because Joe churchgoer makes it?
Arguments are anonymous. A bad argument is still bad, regardless of whether Augustine or the pope makes it. A sound argument is sound, regardless of whether the pope or his cook makes it — or even “Anon.”
The proper function of Church authority is to be subordinate to the truth, not to create it. The proper end of Church authority is move us towards the unity of the faith, not to shut down Bible reading unsanctioned by the Holy See.
Tell me you don’t get the creeps when you hear talk of the RC church “defining” orthodoxy! Can the Church really create truth?
You write, And it’s not that [Bryan’s] personal interpretations trump yours, it’s that all of ours are trumped by the teachings of the Church Christ founded.
This assumes that the teachings of the Church that Christ founded are infallible. You have no way of defending that premise outside of appealing to the teachings of the RC church or the EO church or the Mormon church — a manifestly circular argument.
It further assumes that you or anyone else knows, outside of Scripture, which teachings of the Church are genuine, and which are whisper-down-the-lane. And if the teaching about papal infallibility happens to be one of those whisper-down-the-lanes, the whole edifice falls.
You have no actual knowlege, no documents from the 1st century to point to that demonstrate, “Perpetual virginity was taught by the Church that Christ founded.” All there is are documents several hundred years after the fact that, of a sudden *poof*, claim knowlege, and make weak arguments for that knowledge.
As a standard for knowledge, that’s far worse than Barton.
So you have this double problem: You claim an epistemic weight for the teachings of the Church that cannot be borne (unless they were the word of God himself, in which case they would be Scripture). And, you can’t actually point with knowledge to a list of the true teachings of the Church, outside of the Scriptures. Sure, the Church teaches things now. But are they actually part of the apostolic deposit? Is the filioque?
Sure, people will fill that void for you. But what do they actually know, and how do they know it? The “highest interpretive authority” argument bullies us into feeling bad for asking that question, but it’s the right question to ask.
Don’t forget Grima, speaking for Theoden. He who claims to be the infallible interpreter wields the real authority.
Please walk away. Even if you become convinced of Catholic soteriology from the Scriptures, don’t get sucked into this epistemology.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:52 pm
Bryan (#574), If the pope were God, it would be reasonable to make that analogy.
But the pope is human. The church is made of human beings, all of whom have a sin nature — and demonstrate that fact regularly.
Without sinlessness, there can be no claim to epistemological perfection.
To the Pharisees, Jesus made a risky challenge: “Charge me with sin, if there’s anything to charge.” (John 8.46).
Is the RC church willing to make that same challenge to demonstrate its authority?
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 4:56 pm
Jeff, (re: #576)
You just either denied the inerrancy of Scripture or affirmed the divinity of all its human authors.
The point is that your claim (which I just quoted) is one that belongs to your paradigm, but not to the Catholic paradigm. So you are begging the question.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 5:04 pm
“The authority of the Church is not the consecrated earthly image of the Heavenly Ruler of the Church, but it is a medium through which the Spiritual substance of our lives is preserved and protected and reborn.”
-Tillich
http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=375&C=23
Because you made me…
Protestant here, over and out.
Andrew
PS fun playing with you
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 5:11 pm
My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father’s hand.
(John 10:29 ESV)
Go away, wolves,
Andrew
jsm52 said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Jason (562)
Kind of like how Paul “pressed toward the goal so that, if possible, [he] may attain to the resurrection from the dead”? Either Paul’s self-description in Phil. 3 contradicts what he says in Gal. 5 about waiting for the hope of righteousness, or the two are not mutually exclusive (in which case your comment presents a false dilemma).
The verses (8-10) preceding verse 11 make it clear that Paul sees that to gain Christ is directly connected to giving up any trust or value in his own righteousness. That any commendable quality of our being, works, or love are to be counted as loss when it comes to having a righteousness acceptable to God. Instead, for Paul it is to be found In Christ through faith in Him, having the righteousness which is from God by faith (no mention of love).
For the believer this is the life of the cross, i.e. denying any trust or confidence in our works or righteousness (conformed to His death, count all things loss). We know the foretaste of the resurrection by His Spirit within and placing our trust in His merit and pardon alone for righteousness we even embrace suffering. And it is this life lived in the blessing of His righteousness which comes by faith and a life of counting as dead any inherent righteousness of my own which culminates, when this body dies, in <the resurrection. So the attaining unto the resurrection from the dead and the gaining of Christ is clinging to that righteousness of God which comes by faith. For one day, upon dying and being raised with new bodies, we shall see Him and then be like Him, confirmed in righteousness. Life out of death, in both our sojourn here and in the final step in the resurrection from the dead, when we will be revealed as the sons of God (Rom. 8).
So we do have good works. But not for the attaining of something by those works, which would ironically then have some self-gain in view. Rather the good works are for others, truly springing from grateful and heartfelt obedience as our reasonable service of worship in light of the knowledge which tells us that we bring nothing of righteousness to God apart from Christ and His finished work which is ours through faith alone.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:28 pm
You guys honestly let me quote Tillich around these parts? Has anyone here begun to address the claims of the Moderns? When you are done with RCism, I’d like to know the next topic. Movies are fun too…
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:30 pm
For the record, I am unable to square Tillich’s Christology with that put forth, with what I see, as Orthodox Christology. And I would recommend that McGuckin book to show you what I mean, that I mentioned, I think, in the other thread.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Don’t take my word for it, tho.
Click to access tillich_mcdonald.pdf
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Whoops, my bad. Machen already took care of the Moderns…Back to my cave. You GBers, tackle what you will. Seen any good movies?
Mods, sweep up as deemed necessary. You guys rock!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 28, 2012 at 6:54 pm
Jason (re: 556),
My point is very simple: The basics of the Catholic understanding of the gospel—justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love—is found in all the NT writers, and therefore it makes sense to see that summary as a working paradigm that the writers had when they wrote the NT in the first place.
I would say all the NT writers associate justification by faith with Spirit-wrought works of love. The two are inextricably linked and we cannot be saved by a faith which is devoid of works. But when we come to those passages in Scripture which explicitly deal with the basis of our justification I cannot see what you call “justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love” (thank you for clearly stating it like this BTW). In such passages I see a clear case for justification being by faith apart from works. And then Ephesians 2 summarizes the matter nicely by pointing that we are not saved BY good works but we are saved FOR good works. The Reformed schema emphasizes both the impossibility of separating faith and works as well as the all important truth the God justifies us apart from our works.
I think it’s a good thing that you are playing “by our rules” here, as we Reformed types ought to play by the CtC rules at CtC. I was however noting that in the end of any given discussion between us, if it can be shown that the Scriptures do not endorse a given RCC position, that the Catholic can pull the oral tradition card to trump whatever cannot be demonstrated by Scripture alone. That of course assumes that Scripture does not explicitly deny the doctrine at hand. But it seems like the creative Catholic apologist can show that just about any Catholic doctrine is “consistent” with the teaching of Scripture. And yes there is plenty in the current Roman Catholic system which seems to have no genesis either in Scripture or in the theology of the Early Church, but isn’t explicitly denied by Scripture either. I have to admit that I cannot find anything in the Bible which explicitly denies that Mary was bodily received into Heaven. So is such a doctrine one of those matters that was carried though the Apostolic and Early Church on the wings of oral tradition without ever finding its way into the writings of the Apostles and the ECF’s? But I agree with you that this is a topic for another thread.
Cheers for now….
johnbugay said,
August 28, 2012 at 7:03 pm
Andrew McCallum 585:
I have to admit that I cannot find anything in the Bible which explicitly denies that there are green men on Mars.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Bryan, that’s silly. There is a difference between an event of inspiration (Paul writing 2 Corinthians) and a claim to a “charism of infallibility.”
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 7:41 pm
Jeff, (re: #587)
Of course there is a difference. But that doesn’t refute my point. If, as you claim, a human must be sinless in order to be divinely protected from error, then either all the human authors of Scripture never sinned, or the human authors of Scripture were not divinely protected from error when writing Scripture.
God is omnipotent. He is able to keep a person or a group of persons from falling into doctrinal error, even sinners. He’s sovereign.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Bryan 588:
There’s only one sinless. The one who was sinless is the head of the church.
Here’s a good read:
“But, you say, this doctrine of inspiration is certainly a great paradox. It holds that these men were free, and yet that every word that they wrote was absolutely determined by the Spirit of God. How is that possible? How could God determine the very words that these men wrote and yet not deal with them as mere machines?
Well, my friend, I will tell you how. I will tell you how God could do that. He could do it simply because God is God. There is a delicacy of discrimination in God’s dealing with His creatures that far surpasses all human analogies. When God deals with men He does not deal with them as with machines or as with sticks or stones. He deals with them as with men.
But what needs to be emphasized above all is that when God dealt thus with the Biblical writers, though He dealt with them as with men and not as with machines, yet He accomplished His ends. He ordered their lives to fit them for their tasks. But then, in addition to that providential ordering of their lives, in addition to that use of their individual gifts of which we have spoken, there was a supernatural work of the Spirit of God that made the resulting book not man’s book but God’s Book.”
http://www.christianbeliefs.org/books/chrfaith/ChrFaith-Machen-05.html
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Jeff, (re: #575)
The Devil could have made the same claim to Adam and Eve regarding God. Liberals could make the same claim about the belief that Scripture is the highest authority in the Church. The notion that submitting to divine authority means “radical skepticism towards objective truth” is itself contrary to objective truth. If there is a God who is omniscient and Truth Itself, then submitting to Him is the way to see objective truth most clearly and perfectly; it does not imply that one’s own cognitive faculties are defective, only that they are infinitely inferior to God’s. Man’s reason is not the measure of all things. Also, the notion that submission to divine authority means “radical fideism” is contrary to objective truth. It is not irrational or fideistic to submit to divine authority, just as it was not irrational or fideistic for Abraham to say yes to God when He told him to sacrifice Isaac. Rather, that’s just what divine faith is. That’s just what it means to believe not just in a higher being (e.g. an angel), but in God, whose word deserves our entire confidence, trust and obedience, even when we don’t fully understand or see for ourselves the truth of what He says.
That presupposes that you have the correct interpretation of the Berean passage. On that passage see the last four paragraphs in comment #69 of the “Christ Founded a Visible Church” thread at CTC. It also presupposes that those opposing the Catholic Church are not in a de facto condition of rebellion. If they are, then they should “feel in rebellion.” So it begs the question to claim that a Catholic argument should be rejected because it makes Protestants who hear it feel like they are in rebellion. Hence Gerstner’s famous line in class that if Protestants were wrong on sola fide — and the Catholic Church was right … “I’d be on me knees tomorrow morning outside the Vatican doing penance.” I’m sure that if I claimed that a Protestant argument should be rejected because it makes me feel that the Catholic Church might be wrong, well, that would bring down the house around here. :-)
No Catholic would disagree with that.
Again, no one disagrees. The Catholic Church does not create truth.
This claim presupposes that you have the authority to stipulate what the Church can or cannot do regarding Bible reading.
Defining orthodoxy does not mean creating truth. It means definitively clarifying the content of the apostolic deposit, distinguishing what does and what does not belong to it.
(cont.)
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 8:04 pm
Jeff, (re: #575)
(cont.)
Either you are unaware of the role of the motives of credibility in the act of faith (see comment #77 in the “Wilson vs. Hitchens” thread), or, if you are, then everything you say here about the Church would apply also to Jesus.
Again, everything you say here of the Church could be said to the Apostles concerning Jesus. Jesus’ words were the word of God without being Scripture. The Apostles couldn’t point to a “list of the true teachings of Jesus” outside the Scriptures. Questions could be raised about all His teachings. The notion that He has highest interpretive authority could be referred to as a way of “bullying” the scribes and Pharisees who wanted to ask how He knew what He claimed to know. If, however, He had divine authority to speak for God the Father, then all those objections are shown to be question-begging objections. And likewise, if the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and authorized, then all these objections for the very same reason are question-begging objections.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 28, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Bryan,
Again, everything you say here of the Church could be said to the Apostles concerning Jesus. Jesus’ words were the word of God without being Scripture.
Except the question that the Apostles had was not fundamentally about the truthfulness or authority of Jesus’ words, but about the truth of who He claimed to be, who He is, i.e. God come in the flesh in order to reconcile His sheep unto Himself. His claims regarding Himself were vindicated by a sign, his resurrection. Therein is the gospel. Having believed and to then question His words would have been an absurdity.
What sign does the RCC offer to vindicate her claims of interpretive infallibility?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 8:38 pm
Bryan,
Your comments here, if true, would place Catholic claims to authority outside of the realm of possible falsification.
That’s why your position is fideistic.
Jesus made risky, testable claims: “In three days”, “whoever of you can charge me with sin.”
The Church does not do this. Instead, it makes claims based on secret evidence (“oral tradition”) and invisible gifts of infallibility that cannot be questioned without being “rationalistic” or “begging the question.” Every attempt to question or test the soundness of church teaching against Scripture, *every* attempt, is met with a cry of “foul.”
If in fact Church doctrine correctly reflected the teaching of Scripture, it ought to be able to lay out the case for that doctrine without appeal to “because we say so.”
And if in fact you are not fideistic, then you ought to be able to accept arguments without trying to bicker about “on whose authority”, which is entirely a non-sequitur. Good arguments are good arguments, and authority is beside the point.
The real authority resides in the grounds of those arguments: the Scripture itself.
Bryan, the fact that you compare the Church’s claims to Jesus’s, as if the Church were Jesus Himself, demonstrates the extent to which your position over-reaches.
—
Now speaking of begging the question …
You write, …if the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded and authorized, then all these objections for the very same reason are question-begging objections.
You’re attempting to rule my objections out of order unless I first assume your position.
That, friend Bryan, is begging the question.
Reed Here said,
August 28, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Jeff: keep calling the spade. Don’t be surprised when it gets denied, by a mere fiat wave of the verbal hand.
Sigh …
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 9:33 pm
On the whole begging-the-question charge, I don’t think it applies to Bryan above. It’s not as if he’s saying, “You’re presupposing the Protestant paradigm, which is question-begging. Instead, you should presuppose the Catholic one” (which would be circular).
Instead, the Catholic approach is to say, “Instead of presupposing either paradigm, let’s try to determine, in a non-question-begging way, which paradigm arises from, as well as makes the most sense of, the data.”
But ecclesiology is not the topic of this thread, last I checked.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 28, 2012 at 9:34 pm
And Reed, was that hand-waving and dismissive?
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Jeff, (re: #593)
Again, see the link above in comment #591 on the motives of credibility. Also, I did a podcast in 2009 on this subject of falsifiability (see here), and there I distinguish between different senses of falsifiability. The Catholic Church’s claims to authority are not falsifiable in the first sense of the term, but they are in the second sense of the term, by the motives of credibility.
Again, see the podcast. Some of Jesus’ claims are not falsifiable in any sense of the term. So if you demand that everything be falsifiable, then you cannot follow Jesus (or you must pick and choose from His statements.)
That claim presupposes that Scripture is the entirety of the deposit, which, again, begs the question against the Catholic position.
That’s the rationalism of atheism. For the atheist, authority is beside the point because there is no authority higher than human reason. That, in a nutshell, is the Enlightenment notion of reason and its relation to authority. Of course you are not an atheist, but the position expressed in these statements is a rationalism which presupposes atheism.
So in your previous sentence you say that “authority is beside the point,” and then in the next sentence you appeal to authority. Hmmm.
I agree, of course, in the authority of Scripture. But in the Catholic paradigm, both Tradition and the Magisterium also have divine authority.
Over-reaches according to the standard of your paradigm, sure. But, again, presupposing your paradigm as the standard by which to judge mine simply begs the question.
No. I’m not attempting to rule your objections out of order unless you first assume my position. That would be begging the question. When I say that you are “begging the question,” I’m pointing out that you are presupposing your paradigm (or the standards belonging to your paradigm but not to mine) in criticizing the Catholic paradigm. But that does not mean that you must first assume my position. It means rather that your criticism of my paradigm gives us no reason to prefer one paradigm over the other, because it presupposes the truth of yours. To resolve a disagreement that is paradigmatic in nature, without begging the question, we have to step back and evaluate the competing paradigms by standards recognized within both paradigms.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Bryan,
Define oversight, per Rome. You can not. And you can not build your doctrine of the Pope from Scripture.
The question of innerancy, is a biggee. If you want to explore with us Protestants, let’s read Warfield together. Even Machen used the word, ‘paradox,’ above, but our doctrine of Scripture is not paradoxical.
Your mere presence on this blog is offensive. You want to disrupt us. Why a re you and Jason here? You acausing nusus, your friends, spiritual harm.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 10:16 pm
*you are causing us
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Jason, that’s exactly what Bryan is doing.
Let’s look at what a non-question-begging way would look like.
First, we would note that the doctrines that are distinctively Catholic do not arise from the data of Scripture. We can trace their grounds, and Scriptural passages form little to no part of those grounds.
Mary (sinlessness, immaculate conception, PV) — no.
Icons — no.
Infallibility — no.
Purgatory — no.
Indulgences — no.
Justification by baptism — barely, if at all, and thrown into doubt by Rom 4 and 1 Pet 3 and the justification of OT saints.
Implicit faith — no.
Second, we note that several Catholic doctrines are seemingly falsified by the Scripture or reason. To wit:
The doctrine that we ought to bow before icons or statues to give proper reverence to the holy persons they represent is contradicted, down to the very word προσκυνεω by the 2nd Commandment.
The doctrine that Jesus in the atonement bore our punishment, but not our guilt; but by His merits we are cleansed of guilt, but not punishment and require Purgation, is highly suspect on grounds of illogic.
The doctrine that one might lose one’s justification, properly received, appears to contradict Romans 8.30, John 10.28, and more.
The doctrine that we are justified by infused righteousness requires either sinless perfection after justification, or else a legal fiction on God’s part; but legal fiction is precisely the fault that Rome finds with imputation; so that the argument against imputation swallows its own tail.
The doctrine that the communion elements become Jesus’ body and blood appears to contradict Chalcedon’s teaching that the divine and human natures do not borrow attributes from one another — that Jesus’ body is not omnipresent.
There are more, but that’s a start.
Third, we note that Catholics appeal frequently to the notion of “oral tradition” — hidden evidence, unable even to be transcribed — as the ground of many of the doctrines above.
Fourth, we note that tragically many of Catholic (as well Protestant) teaching authorities demonstrated lives of mortal sin. On the authority of Jesus’ command, believers are directed to observe this behavior and to count such as false teachers.
—
So far, no “Protestant presuppositions” have been employed. We’re just observing the presence and absence of evidences, the structure of arguments, and the appearance of contradictions.
Now Bryan’s apologetic comes into play, and the following themes are sounded: The observations above are “begging the question”, “acting as your own highest interpretive authority”, “Whose interpretation?”, “rationalistic”, “Protestant paradigm”, etc. The very claim that we can read the words on the page and understand them is considered evidence of rebellion.
Fine. He can certainly say these things. But the objective facts above stand. I could be as rationalistic as the day is long, and it would still be true that we are in fact told not to bow to graven images in Scripture, but Catholics are in fact taught to genuflect before crucifixes with graven images of Jesus.
What could be plainer? It’s not about me and my own interpretive authority. I could disappear tomorrow and someone else would discover the same problem.
This is about what anyone can see unless they have been taught that seeing is sinful rebellion.
Did Amos defer to authorized authority (Amos 7.10-17)? Yet we, too, have been given the word of the Lord in written form. Ought we disregard it, doubt its plain meaning, because we are “not authorized”?
Will God accept such a defense for disregarding His word?
Again, I want to re-stress that the “highest interpretive authority” argument is a distracter, and bad philosophy. Arguments do not magically increase or decrease in soundness by being “authorized” or “unauthorized.”
Likewise, no amount of authority can change what Paul or Jesus or James meant by their words.
(Nor, in real life, do epistemic authorities line up to be ranked from highest to lowest, but that’s a whole different issue).
—
Now: one could pick items out of my list and show, by good-and-necessary inference, that I have in fact misread the Scripture. That’s entirely possible; I’ve done it before and I could do it again.
But that method is unacceptable. So now what? Shall we beg the question and insist on finding the right church authority before we can understand the gospel properly?
Jeff Cagle said,
August 28, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Bryan,
Some of Jesus’ claims are not falsifiable in any sense of the term.
Agreed. But are any RC claims to authority falsifiable?
It’s not a problem to say that the evidences that John presented, so that “we may know that Jesus is the Son of God” do not amount to scientific proof, but are sufficient grounds for a non-fideistic faith.
That’s fine.
But at least as you argue it, nothing that Rome says can be falsified in principle.
How would one even begin? What could count as a falsification? Nothing in Scripture could count, because Rome claims prior interpretive authority.
Nothing in history or tradition could count (like, for example, the fact that half the church rejects Roman claims to authority), because Rome discounts as schismatic any source that does not accept Roman authority.
All of our witnesses are left unable to speak by the terms of the debate, and no claim is subject to falsification.
If no claim is subject to falsification, then no fact is evidential; merely conveniently consistent.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Jason,
I get your comments. This blog is about you. Comment away. Not that you need me to approve…
Bryan,
How do your actions here honor Christ?
Peace,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:20 pm
http://www.esvbible.org/search/romans+14%3A1-4/
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Jeff, (re: #601)
If you mean ‘falsifiable’ in the second sense of the term, then yes. That is the role of the motives of credibility. See the link I provided in #591. The Church’s claim to divine authority is supported by the motives of credibility, just as Christ’s claim to divine authority is supported by motives of credibility. And just as by these motives of credibility Christ’s claim to divine authority was falsifiable in the second sense of the term, so by the Church’s motives of credibility her claim to divine authority is falsifiable in the second sense of the term.
Regarding dogma, only those parts of the deposit referring to historical events or truths of natural theology and ethics knowable by the natural light of reason are falsifiable in the second sense of the term ‘falsifiable.’ That’s also true of Jesus’s words. The rest of dogma pertains to areas beyond the possible reach of human reason. We accept dogma on the divine authority of the Church. But we don’t simply leap to dogma, or believe in the authority of the Church on the basis of the authority of the Church. That would be fideistic and/or circular. Rather, we come to learn the divine authority of the Church through the motives of credibility. And the motives of credibility are falsifiable in the second sense of the term. Faith is not necessary to discover and grasp the motives of credibility. They are accessible in principle by the natural light of reason, and provide the evidence of the divine authority of Christ and His Church.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Zrim said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:40 pm
JJS & Bryan, re the rigging-and-question-begging point, I think Jeff has covered it. Bryan, your response in 574 seems brutally revealing: to question the RCC or her adherents is tantamount to questioning Jesus himself. Heavens to Murgatroyd. The Reformed might have a well earned reputation for arrogance, but Catholic claims of absolute infallibility have an inherent and formalized arrogance that is utterly staggering. For those willing to see it, there is a difference between insisting “We’re pretty confident we’re right” and claiming “Yeah, but we know we’re never wrong.”
And, Jason, strictly speaking ecclesiology may not be the topic of this thread, but my line of conversation was only responding to your big picture note in 511 which seemed to have resident within it a point about interpretive authority. Maybe I mis-read it (I’m Reformed, after all), but when you stop to make a general announcement about “where you’re coming from,” don’t be too surprised for someone to pick up on something you may not have anticipated. And when or if that happens, it’s not great form to blow the OT whistle. Especially after more than 600 blessed posts (BTW, this thread’s got nothing on the 2k ones).
Bryan Cross said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:49 pm
Zrim, (re: #605)
Just as Jesus explained to Saul in Acts 9 that persecuting the Church was “tantamount to” persecuting Him.
A claim to divine protection from error under certain conditions is arrogant only if one doesn’t have that charism. If one has that protection, then claiming that one has it is not arrogant, but is simply speaking the truth. So the charge of arrogance presupposes that the magisterium does not have that charism, and in that way begs the question against the Catholic position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
August 28, 2012 at 11:57 pm
From Bryan @ 604:
Rather, we come to learn the divine authority of the Church through the motives of credibility. And the motives of credibility are falsifiable in the second sense of the term. Faith is not necessary to discover and grasp the motives of credibility. They are accessible in principle by the natural light of reason, and provide the evidence of the divine authority of Christ and His Church.
Isn’t this, for lack of another term, a green-eye-shades argument, if there ever was one?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:22 am
Jack,
Agreed, provided you echo Paul and say that what is repudiated is “a righteousness of my own, based on the law [of Moses].”
Whoops, looks like I spoke too soon!
Jack, I want everyone to see what you are doing here (and I really hope you see it, too). What Paul says he repudiates are the things he considered “gain” before his conversion, namely, his Jewish pedigree and his zeal for the law, etc. (he lists it all for us right in the text). This is a perfect parallel with (w a i t for it…) Gal. 5, where Paul talks about “you who would be justified by the law by accepting circumcision.”
You, on the other hand, ignore what Paul says he repudiates and put other words in his mouth. In your reading, Paul is repudiating “any commendable quality of our being, works, or love.” But unfortunately, his point in Galatians completely destroys your reading of Phil. 3. In Galatians, “faith working through love” is the antidote to, and not just another symptom of, justification by law. So in Phil. 3, Paul would never say he repudiates the fruit the Spirit wrought in him. In fact, much to the contrary he asks the Philippians to imitate him as he imitates Christ (v. 17).
You see, your theological bias will not allow you to say of Paul’s own Spirit-wrought works of love what Paul himself says about them. And if that weren’t scary enough, you then force Paul to esteem those works in exactly the opposite way he explicitly does esteem them in what he actually wrote.
Again, you’re misconstruing the Catholic position, which is synonymous with “Work out your own salvation, for it is God who works in you,” or, “I labored harder than anyone, but not me, but Christ in me.” No Catholic on this thread means anything more than that when we talk about our works of love. They are not “my own,” nor are they something which makes up for some deficiency in Jesus’ work.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:37 am
Jason,
I’ll probably respond tomorrow. Suffice to say, it’s probably good that, at this time, you are no longer a shepherd of Christ’s sheep.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:56 am
Andrew McC,
As long as you’re agreeing with all the NT writers, you should agree with James, who doesn’t just say that we “cannot be saved by a faith which is devoid of works,” but that that very “faith devoid of works” is itself what he calls “dead faith,” and “faith alone.” And that, he says, cannot justify you any more than it did Abraham.
Yes, I realize that. I tried my best to demonstrate it from Gal. 5, but despite never refuting what I said you have continued to say you disagree. Like I said a couple days ago, I’m willing to just call a stalemate here.
You’re just working from the list paradigm here, as evidenced by your only being able to see “works that I perform and present to God for approval” whenever you read the word “works” in Paul.
I don’t think you should have to do that at all. At CTC, the writers claim to want to consider together the biblical and patristic evidence, which is certainly not “playing by their rules.” Those are rules that we all can play by. Sure, there’s a DH in the AL and not the NL, but that fact doesn’t make the strike zone any different.
There’s common ground, is what I’m saying, and the CTC guys want us to walk that ground together and see where it gets us. But from what I have seen, it is the Reformed side that’s unwilling to even bother. Whether it’s Hart or Zrim using one-liners for the peanut gallery to giggle at, or others complaining that Bryan’s posts are either devoid of evidence, or too long when he includes some, it just seems like the Reformed side is comfortable retreating and circling the wagons. There are exceptions, of course, and it’s those guys that I am dialoguing with here (while ignoring everyone else).
As for here, I realize that it would be question-begging to appeal to extra-biblical authority as such, so I don’t do it. Thankfully (as I have been showing), when it comes to the basics of the Catholic gospel I don’t even need to, since the NT is abundantly sufficient.
First, we’re not talking about “any given RCC position,” and as I said already, to open the discussion up like that would effectively kill any dialogue.
When the Catholic “plays the trump card of Tradition,” he is not doing it to prove to YOU that said position is true and therefore should be accepted by you. That would be circular. The Catholic would say something like this, “By demanding a strictly biblical prooftext, you are begging the question by assuming Sola Scriptura. I do not hold to that, but also hold to Tradition and the Magisterium. But then, you don’t hold to those things, so likewise I can’t play those trump cards to defeat you. Rather, I need to show you, using evidence we both accept, why those extra-biblical sources should be admissible as evidence.”
Now, if you cannot see that this is what Bryan has been saying for years, then you’re just not paying attention and instead just stubbornly hear him hand-waving and playing trump cards. But that’s on you, not him. Say what you want about him (and plenty of personal attacks have been made here about him), but the guy is nothing if not painstakingly clear, not to mention patient (and to your credit, Andrew, you’re incredibly patient over at CTC as well).
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:58 am
Jack,
Personal insults don’t make your position any less unbiblical, Jack. They just demonstrate that you’re running out of places to go.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:08 am
It is interesting, Jason and Bryan, since you were once reformed. I , for one, want a papal bull to come out that is clearly against your background and understanding of Scripture. Not because I like to see conflict. But that should make it clear why we are what we are. And the pope will do this. Someday. Unless you think he and his office is sinless…
Peace.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:12 am
That’s not intended as an insult, but a reaction to the affect of your response to my comments. You seem rather sure of yourself when it comes to what’s going on in me and whether I have places to go in response to the substance of your response. My previous comment stands.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:14 am
God did, after all,send a person (himself!) and not a book, to save me. Its just, that book is all about that person. And his name does not rhyme with plenedict.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:20 am
It was an insulting comment, Jack. You claim to not have intended offense when you say that it’s better that I’m not a shepherd of Christ’s sheep anymore. Fine. But unlike my comments to you that irked you, you just left out the substantive part and went straight for the insult.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:21 am
Hey Lane! Howz it hanging? Any more posts on the book of John? Read any Bultmann, lately? We miss you,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:23 am
PS this Jason guy, that hangs out at your blog, he’s got good taste in movies….just sayin. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:27 am
Oh..but I don’t think he golfs. Can’t remember whether you do,or not, let’s golf, yo.
Bob S said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:36 am
574
They could not and did not. Why not? Because Christ performed miracles as per Deut. 18 and quoted Scripture to them in order to show their hypocrisy and disobedience to Scripture. Note bene he did not appeal to the infallible Jewish church. Now why was that?
But all this as a setup for the big switcheroo below by our logic chopper.
Note the bait and switch or shell game going on. On the one had we are talking about Christ and then in the last sentence we miraculously segue to the totally infallible church in the big leap of “faith” – i.e. ignorance – and suspension of reason. In other words the proposition begs the question big time.
IOW Bryan’s argument is that if Christ is infallible, any church that he would found must be infallible.
But Christ has founded a church. Ergo it is infallible.
Rebuttal. But Christ’s infallibility is a personal infallibility flowing from his divine nature as the second person of the Trinity. But the church is not one of the three persons in the Trinity. Therefore it is not infallible like God.
Again. Christ is infallible, any church he would found would have an infallible head.
But he found the church of Rome. Ergo, its head, the pope is infallible.
The argument is valid, the problem is with the truth of the premises. How do we know that one, Christ actually found the church of Rome and two, it would have an head other than himself?
But Christ found the church at Rome, Matt. 18 tells us so.
Rebuttal. In that liars should have good memories, Rome infallibly tells us that her doctrine is consonant with the unanimous consent of the fathers.
But there is no unanimous consent of the fathers on the local bishop of Rome having universal non resident infallible oversight of the rest of the church.
I know. That’s just circular reasoning, begging the question, blah blah blah…
Oops stepped on 595 ‘s toes. My bad.
Whatever.
591 is more of the same
Bryan assumes what he needs to prove about the church Christ founded. 1. That it is Roman and 2. That it is infallible.
But Jmsc52 nailed it in 592
597That claim presupposes that Scripture is the entirety of the deposit, which, again, begs the question against the Catholic position.
And the alternative is what, allow the Catholic position to beg the question that the Scripture is what it says it is, perspicuous, sufficient and infallible.
IOW the existent of extra biblical apostolic oral traditions is irrelevant. For all practical purposes they have been replaced by the Word.
I agree, of course, in the authority of Scripture. But in the Catholic paradigm, both Tradition and the Magisterium also have divine authority.
Then of course, the Catholic paradigm pleads the authority of Scripture for the divine authority of Tradition and the magisterium? No? No? Wait a minute. . . . Isn’t that begging the. . .
Bob S said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:38 am
561/To Whom It May Concern (IOW nobody)
FTR nobody reads my posts. I don’t even read my posts. That’s why there are so many formatting errors in them. And I know you don’t read my posts, because you told me you don’t.
Guess what? I couldn’t care less.
Why?
Because it’s not all about you or the other prima donna ex prots over at CtC or even yrs truly for that matter. It’s all about the perspicuous and sufficient Biblical gospel of sovereign grace in Christ alone. Which is worth fighting for and which you deny, implicitly, explicitly and in so many words proudly and w.o apology.
IOW you don’t agree with the imputation paradigm so you are over here pushing the congruent merit or the agape list-keeping vs. law list- keeping paradigm and wonder of wonders, somebody doesn’t agree. And inconsistently you have a problem with that.
But we wouldn’t be catching flak if we weren’t on target. Your little Gal. 5:5 gambit didn’t go over so easily, did it? Funny that. Likewise the alternative Romanist paradigm for the NT. But rather than engage the argument, you played the outraged about snark card. Like your arguments weren’t so ridiculous and superficial, it really was short work to answer them.
Again FTR, it’s like this friend. No mercy, no quarter, no prisoners. May the best argument win. So far yours aren’t doing so good. Sorry about that, but that is what distinguishes the truth from error.
John 8:31,32Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed: And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
cordially
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:49 am
Jason,
I did say I would probably respond tomorrow and I qualified my comment with “at this time”. Why? You complain of snark and not taking your arguments seriously, and yet often do the same. Is it so out of bounds that I think it not best you are a pastor at this time? You did resign, after all, and now embrace things that I consider undermine the gospel. I don’t doubt you would have the same evaluation of me. I spoke out of frustration, not to your argument, but to what I perceived as your dismissive tone. And it would have been better if I had held my tongue. Accept my apology, if you would, for my remark.
Bob S said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:51 am
610
Of course, that explains why over on the Argument for Papacy thread when 2 Tim. 3:15-17 came up in regard to the perspicuity and sufficiency of Scripture, Bryan and JJS pounded the table and declared it to be presupposing protestantism and BtQ. DAnders could only find infallibility in the passage, while Sean was able to come up with profitableness.
So when somebody tells us these are the CtC first stringers, of course we respond by asking about drug testing or are these people in their right minds.
And then get chided for being snarky.
Dunno, Ollie. When it comes to an infallible church, you can’t win.
Yo Stan. I got jus the ticket. Youse should jus ignore ’em. That’s what I do and it works good.
ciao
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:58 am
I read, bob, fwiw..
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:06 am
OK, Jack. And sorry for coming off dismissive. I am sensitive to snark and arrogance in others because it is the issue I struggle with myself. I know I have a log in my eye, but sometimes I only notice the specks.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:09 am
Jason, I too apologize for snark. Peace.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:15 am
Well, given that each of us, with logs in our own eyes, is seeking to lead the other whom we consider infirmed with blurred vision… well, it is quite a picture. Back to substance tomorrow, I trust.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:18 am
Totally, Jack. I definately think given I only have a speck, I really should take out your log for you and log for Jason. Oh wait…did I read that wrong? I better get out and play golf…its been a while. G’night, El Camino bro.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:31 am
Oh, and of course Jason was supposed to step down. God’s sovereign, after all. Let’s continue to pray for the dude. If I were him, I would be a bit peeved, given all the attention. We oughta think of the man behind these posts. And like morisette says, ‘what it all comes down to….its that nobody’s got it all figured out just yet…and the other hand, flashing a…peace sign’
dgh said,
August 29, 2012 at 5:51 am
Jason, for the record, biblicism as Frame argued for it was an argument based only on Scripture as opposed to tradition or history. It was not an argument to show when appeals to Scripture were wrong.
As I’ve said before, if you want to argue for RC’sm from the evidence of the NT and ECF, the Eastern Church is as legitimate as Rome. Which makes the CTC choice of Rome as much like an evangelical choosing Geneva.
In which case, the giggles come from the audacity of CTC’s claims. You yourself said at your blog while interacting with one of Cross’ posts that history is more objective than Scripture. That is an audacious claim not from either a Protestant or Roman Catholic paradigm but simply on the way that all texts, persons, offices, need to be interpreted. But the basic thrust of CTC is that no interpretation is needed. CTC has a person, not a book. CTC has an infallible officer, not a variety of interpretations.
If you want to knock off the one-liners, try making an argument for Rome that actually does justice to the way that human existence works. But that would mean giving up a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty.
dgh said,
August 29, 2012 at 5:57 am
Bryan, at 574 and 577, the differences between Jesus and Rome are several. For one, the infallible and inspired authors of Scripture reveal Jesus and don’t say anything about an infallible church. Most of the times you read Rome’s infallible statements, Mary and the papacy, the only two instances of infallibility according to a variety of RC historians, you don’t hear much about Jesus but you do hear teachings that protect Rome’s status.
Another difference is that Jesus is revealed in a canon of writings. Paul and Peter and others may have written a lot more beside their canonical books, but Rome’s writings are long — you’ve seen the Catechism — and it’s still not clear what is infallible. Some of it is, some of it isn’t. This leaves RC’s in the situation of an average evangelical — needing to decide for himself what to believe from church teaching.
Another difference between Jesus and Rome is that Jesus went away. Rome won’t. When Jesus went away he gave his Spirit and his word. Could Rome ever have that kind of confidence in the movement of the Spirit or the workings of providence? It hasn’t happened yet.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2012 at 7:10 am
Bryan Cross said:
Bryan has back-handedly equated “a Church that claims to be infallible under certain conditions” with Jesus himself. This is a huge stretch, and it assumes very many things that ought not to be assumed.
Roman Catholics believe that the word of Christ to the Apostles, “Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16 and similar verses) applies to the Roman Catholic hierarchy today. And the Roman Catholic doctrine of succession speaks of “the unbroken succession going back to the beginning, are regarded as transmitters of the apostolic line”.
Unfortunately for them, they have misunderstood and misapplied what was going on with these types of verses, and they have assumed things they ought not to have assumed.
One key thing they miss is that the notion of being a “bishop” is conditional.
The book of Acts gives us a very good picture of what “Apostolic Succession” looked like during Apostolic times (Acts 20:17-36). And what Acts shows us is at variance with what Roman Catholics believe about “Apostolic Succession”.
How did the Apostles and Biblical writers themselves understand this commission? One comment won’t be enough to cover all the ins-and-outs of this topic. Jason Engwer has made an extensive study of this topic, for anyone who is interested in following up with it more deeply.
But we have a biblical example of how this “handing on” occurred. We have Paul saying farewell to the elders at Ephesus. Luke has summarized what was truly important, in the “handing on” of leadership from an Apostle to elders:
First of all, Paul himself provides the example. He served with “great humility”. This certainly was not a characteristic of, say, medieval Roman Catholic “bishops”.
As well, Paul has not hesitated to preach anything. The Roman Catholic notion that there are doctrines “implicit” within “the deposit” (a rationale that’s given for some of the Marian doctrines) is simply not supported by this notion. (As Turretinfan frequently points out, John 20:31 explicitly states that, while there were many other things that Jesus did and said, these specifically “are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.”)
The task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace was more precious to Paul than his own life. Elsewhere Paul emphasizes this as well. In his first letter to the Corinthians, he reminded them “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel ( 1 Cor 1:17). This is very much not in line with those who suggest that something like “the eucharist” is “the heart of life”. Paul clearly places his focus on the preaching of the gospel.
There are several things to note here. First, notice that “presbyters” or “elders” in this passage have “oversight” – the “πρεσβυτέρους τῆς ἐκκλησίας” – there are multiple presbyters in a single church) are made “ἐπισκόπους” (“overseers”, vs 28). With the phrase “house to house”, Paul confirms that even a single “church”, the church at Ephesus, was made up of multiple “house church” congregations. This is the very structure that Peter Lampe finds in the second century church at Rome.
Paul also emphasizes that the “elders” are “bishops” and vice versa: “The people described here as ‘bishops’ [“overseers”] are identical with those described as ‘elders’ in verse 17, an in 14:23 we read how they were appointed by Paul in some of his churches with prayer and fasting, i.e., in dependence on the guidance of the Spirit”.
“Keep watch over yourselves”. Marshall says, “In the manner of a farewell discourse, [Paul] deals with how they are to act when he is no longer with them. They are to pay attention to their own spiritual condition (cf. 1 Tim 4:16) as well as to that of the church; it is only as the leaders themselves remain faithful to God that they can expect the church to do so likewise. This is echoed by Irenaeus, by the way, who along with his teaching on “succession”, said this:
Leadership is conditional.
One might think of First Clement here, introducing a distorted concept of grace, as noted by T.F. Torrance: “Clement definitely thinks of charis as referring to a gift of God without which the Christian would not be able to attain to love or salvation. But there is little doubt that this is held along with the idea of merit before God; for grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy”.
Distorting. The original is in view, but it’s different from the original. Just as Paul said. Note that we’re not saying here that the church “falls”. Nor that Clement is evil. The church was not on its guard, and a key truth became distorted. To suggest that the church would fall upon such an occurrence is to mistakenly assume that doctrines quoad se [doctrines in themselves] and doctrines quoad nos [as they have to do with us] are identical with one another and perfectly correspond at every single point.
Here is where there is a confluence of failures of Augustine’s goof on justification and Augustine’s ecclesiology. There will be “bad bishops”, “bad elders”. “Even from your own number, men will arise and distort the truth”. In retrospect, Rome even made Clement a “pope” and adopted his distorted view of grace.
So “be on your guard” – discipline for these men certainly would and should be in line with church discipline found in Matt 18:15-17, and extending as far as that goes: “treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector”. They are to be shunned. Such discipline was avoided for long periods of time, especially during times of simony, giving lie to the notion of “an unbroken succession going back to the beginning”. But it happened at the Reformation.
Christ spared his church through this wilderness, even through a massive failure of leadership. But as Calvin said, even if the church itself will not exercise its discipline, God would do it:
And this, to be sure, was the church of Rome at the time of the Reformation. Calvin was an accurate reporter of his times.
There is no question Christ commissioned his Apostles to be his eyewitnesses. Note here in verse 33 that it is “God” and “the word of his grace” which “builds” and “gives”.
It is just simply wrong, as Bryan has done, to equate the Roman Catholic hierarchy, which (“claims to be infallible under certain conditions”) with Christ. Jason Stellman said “I don’t identify the essence of the church by ‘what it looks like.’” But the beliefs and practices articulated here in Acts certainly convey the “essence” of what of “succession” should have been all about.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 8:04 am
But of course, to continue my thought, we sometimes feel we must unload all the snark we can muster. Not that we fear for the next minister who swims the Tiber. Because since your resignation, I’m sure others and taken the swim. Its just, its sad for us to see these developments. All the best Jason, from the bottom of my heart. Peace
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 8:08 am
PS I really liked bob S’s latest comments in this thread. Of course, most of the comments here at GB are worth a read, I just though I would point out, i particularly liked the latest from Bob s, fwiw…
Bryan Cross said,
August 29, 2012 at 8:51 am
Darryl (re: #630)
Even if all the things you said in #630 were true, they would be fully compatible with the truth of what I said in #574 and #577.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 8:58 am
Pps if you, dear reader, are bored with life, go read http://www.calledtocommunion.com, and post comments. Its a fun game, to see, what comments they do and do not allow. I, for one, have a comment from last night, responding to friar bryan. This one, in fact:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-37251
He says that we can’t make sense of people who show seemingly super human love, like mother Theresa, under imputation. I beg to differ. Its that he doesn’t understand Philippians 4:7 that those of us encountered upon realizing the of what our fathers in the faith taught. Its results in a isaiah 40 type comfort, where we can run like Forrest gump, not growing weary
Thanks, GB, for being the fetzel var lve, an outlet,for those of us who don’t meet up to the Roman standard.
As you where,
BC has been analyzing Ferguson’s 3 minute YouTube on imputation. Who on earth is Bryan Cross, anyway? Who does he think he is?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:01 am
The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:06 am
Bryan,
We are kinda like the TV show, ‘cheers,’ over here. Sometimes you wanna go, where everybody knows your name! Oh, and they are always glad you came!
Keep posting, me amigo. How could I ever say bad things about someone willing to golf with little ol’ AB…
Apologies,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:17 am
Thanks, Bryan, for letting my comment through. There’s more I want to write on your comment about Sinclair:
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/08/imputation-and-paradigms-a-reply-to-nicholas-batzig/#comment-37262
I am the someone who sent you, via email, that comment.if you want, we can discuss my thoughts, here. Maybe Lane can write a blog post. I sent that clip, along with my pouring out my heart to you, over email. Maybe next time,have the decency to tell me you are addressing my clips publicly. It hurt a little to see you turn around and do that, but it’s cool. God’s imputed righteousness extends to all those who call on Jesus’ name, and unlike my upbringing as a pelagian, there’s no special formula to bring about forgiveness between two parties.just know, that for my part, we are friends, and I hope you enjoy the back and forth, as I do. I really so want to hear your story, etc…
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:19 am
Whoppsie, bad link above. See comment 203 at the link, where BC has some wisdom to share with Dr. Ferguson. Who knows, maybe they are golf buddies…
Shutting up,
Andrew
TurretinFan said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:19 am
DGH wrote:
Not only is what you said true, it’s the lack of clarity is breathtaking.
There are three ways that something can be infallible in RCism:
1) If a pope says it “ex cathedra.”
2) If an ecumenical council says it and a pope endorses it.
3) If it is taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium.
But it is not always clear what exactly the pope says ex cathedra. Some people claim it was just the two Marian dogmas (Immaculate Conception and Assumption). Others provide a longer list. Vatican I provided a definition of when the pope speaks infallibly, but application of that definition requires private judgment.
Likewise, it is not necessarily clear whether a council is ecumenical or not and whether line-item-vetos (as it were) from the pope are effective. This becomes significant when a council deposes several competing popes and installs a new one (Council of Constance) or when a pope tries to cancel a particular aspect of a conciliar document through a preliminary note (Paul VI, Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, “Preliminary Note of Explanation”).
And the O&UM is even more fuzzy than the previous two. The CDF (the acronym for what used to be the Inquisition) has taught that certain things are infallibly taught by the O&UM, but the CDF itself is not infallible. So, again – back to private judgment.
Even if you happened to be Hans Kung and able to get an audience with the Pope at his summer palace in Castel Gandolfo (something that only a small handful of people will ever be able to do), and even if you seized that moment after kissing his ring to ask him to answer whatever most pressing and crucial theological question you had, you would have no reason to think that that the pope’s answer to you was infallible.
-TurretinFan
Zrim said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:22 am
Just as Jesus explained to Saul in Acts 9 that persecuting the Church was “tantamount to” persecuting Him. A claim to divine protection from error under certain conditions is arrogant only if one doesn’t have that charism. If one has that protection, then claiming that one has it is not arrogant, but is simply speaking the truth. So the charge of arrogance presupposes that the magisterium does not have that charism, and in that way begs the question against the Catholic position.
Bryan, you’ll have to pardon me for not knowing when we can appeal to Scripture and when we can’t. I guess now is good? But if Acts 9 establishes the charism of the Church, such that to question her is to question her head, then does Ephesians 5 mean that my position as head of my wife even as Christ is the head of the church, etc. mean that her questioning of me is to question Christ himself? That’s a tempting interpretation, I’ll admit. But what it would seem to entail is that in the event of a disagreement when she says, “I’m pretty confident I’m right” I would have to say, “Yeah, but I know I’m never wrong. The Bible gives me that charism and protection and I am not arrogant to say so.”
So it’s hard to see how your claims aren’t the ecclesiastical version of a bully head of household lording it over, something the Bible also condemns. But maybe this is the part where the Bible doesn’t count anymore.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:32 am
BC said in comment 203 that the difference lies somehow in the fact that RC dogma says Mary did not have original sin.
Well, he’s got something right. To say that Mary does not have original sin?! What is this RC church that says I must pack up my orthodox Presbyterian tent and surf with their pope? Mary has no original sin?
I take it all back. Don’t got post on C2C. I don’t know who those people are! But its best we stay here, where everybody knows your name…
TurretinFan said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:39 am
And it gets worse when you press particular points. After all, Trent was an ecumenical council, right? It was endorsed by a pope, right? So it should be infallible, shouldn’t it?
But it states:
But that quacks like an interpretation of Matthew 16:18, in which the rock foundation is the profession of faith. And it’s not just one of those foundations, but the “alone” foundation.
Then Vatican I comes along and makes the statement:
But that quacks like an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 also — one in which the rock foundation is Peter.
Pick a duck, but both views cannot be right. If both cannot be right, then both cannot be infallible.
-Turretin
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:48 am
Brothers,
We need to the RCC out. They got issues. Maybe Jason can show the pope proper form…
The reformation is far far from over,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:50 am
* we need to help
But not to increase our agape. Dudes, we get imputation. Out of what we know and have experienced, how can we sit idly by and let that church languish!
They need us,
Andrew
Jason Loh said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:58 am
Amen & Amen!
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 10:06 am
Please contact and support your committee on ecumenism.
dghart said,
August 29, 2012 at 10:20 am
Bryan, how could the things I wrote in 630 be compatible with what you wrote earlier since my positions question your claims about papal infallibility? You’re not going Vatican 2 on me, are you?
Jason Loh said,
August 29, 2012 at 10:34 am
Begging the question??
sean said,
August 29, 2012 at 11:21 am
I could be wrong but I believe only the ‘religious’, specifically priestly formation, receive training in canon law and can provide ‘judicial’ oversight on matters of concilliary interpretation both concerning substance and authority. In that regard, Vat 2;
We decided moreover that all that has been established synodally is to be religiously observed by all the faithful, for the glory of God and the dignity of the Church and for the tranquility and peace of all men. We have approved and established these things, decreeing that the present letters are and remain stable and valid, and are to have legal effectiveness, so that they be disseminated and obtain full and complete effect, and so that they may be fully convalidated by those whom they concern or may concern now and in the future; and so that, as it be judged and described, all efforts contrary to these things by whomever or whatever authority, knowingly or in ignorance be invalid and worthless from now on.
Given in Rome at St. Peter’s, under the [seal of the] ring of the fisherman, Dec. 8, on the feast of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the year 1965, the third year of our pontificate.
Somehow this gets interpreted as ‘pastoral’ but not ex cathedra, but ‘we really mean it’
This doesn’t seem to work like Jesus’ let your yes be your yes and your no your no. I think Jesus’ authority style works better not to mention the apostolic authority of the NT canon. It’s a lot clearer, even perspicuous.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 11:46 am
Hi Sean,
Is that what Jesus told the Pharisees, when he challenged their authority?
If you read the TIllich link, the last couple paragraphs, it undermines even the protestants alleged authority.
Christianity turns on itself!
It’s a brave new post modern world, and we want the RC’s to help us in the fight. But we’ve got a few things we need to discuss, before we can welcome the RC church into full communion with us. I would encourage you to ask your questions of our committees on ecumenism. There’s some really hard working guys, working on this.
Proceed, bloggers, with caution,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 11:50 am
“The God who does not answer the question of ultimate authority transforms the preliminary authorities into media and tools of Himself—of the God who is Spirit. Parental authority on earth is not the consecrated image of a parental authority in heaven, but it is the earliest tool through which the Spiritual qualities of order and self-control and love are mediated to us. Therefore, the parents must be and remain subjects of honor, but not of unconditional authority. Even God whom we call the Father in heaven cannot answer the ultimate question of authority. How could the parents?
The authority of wisdom and knowledge on earth is not the consecrated image of the authority of heavenly omniscience, but it is the tool through which the Spiritual qualities of humility and knowledge and wisdom are mediated to us. Therefore, the wise ones should be honored but not accepted as unconditional authorities.
The authorities in community and society, in nation and state, are not consecrated images of heavenly power and justice, but they are tools through which the Spiritual qualities of mutuality, understanding, righteousness, and courage can be mediated to us. Therefore, the social authorities should be accepted as guarantees of external order but not as those which determine the meaning of our lives.
The authority of the Church is not the consecrated earthly image of the Heavenly Ruler of the Church, but it is a medium through which the Spiritual substance of our lives is preserved and protected and reborn.
Even the authority of Jesus the Christ is not the consecrated image of the man who rules as a dictator, but it is the authority of him who emptied himself of all authority; it is the authority of the man on the Cross. It is one and the same thing, if you say that God is Spirit and that He is manifest on the Cross.
And you who are fighting against authorities and you who are searching for authorities, listen to the story in which Jesus fights against them and establishes an authority which cannot be established! Here is an answer, namely, that no answer can be given except the one that, beyond all preliminary authorities, you must keep yourselves open to the power of Him who is the ground and the negation of everything which is authority on earth and in Heaven!”
I’m just the messenger,
Andrew
PS please read the other link, above, about Tillich’s Christology. There’s some issues with this Dr. Tillich fellow…that need to be addressed. I’m more of a Karl Barth guy, just fyi…
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Or you can ask the guy who is the Paul Tillich Professor Emeritus of Theology and Culture, Tom Faw Driver.
http://www.utsnyc.edu/pages-primary/faculty/faculty-emeriti?
I realize we are just a bunch a dudes, talking theology. I need to leave, I’m way to serious…
sean said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:12 pm
Andrew,
Karl Barth hated Roman catholicism with a passion. Tough to be ecumenical with a group who claims infallibility and sole possessors of magisterial charism. You can capitulate and bend the knee, and they can try to charm you into communion but there is no bargaining between equals in this debate from the RC paradigm.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:23 pm
Hence our hardworking committees.
Thanks, Sean. God does love His church, we can rest on that truth…
TurretinFan said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:24 pm
JJS wrote:
In James (even on your own summary) the question is not whether faith saves, or how faith saves, but what kind of faith saves. Thus, raising this point in this discussion is just a red herring.
– TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:38 pm
JJS wrote:
No one from our side is saying that “faith working through love” is a symptom of justification by law. “Working through love” is the symptom of a particular kind of faith.
But it is not the love or the expression of that love, which justifies. What justifies or saves? Faith.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 29, 2012 at 12:58 pm
In response to this characterization: “to question the RCC or her adherents is tantamount to questioning Jesus himself,” Bryan Cross responded and expanded: “Just as Jesus explained to Saul in Acts 9 that persecuting the Church was “tantamount to” persecuting Him.”
The principle that Jesus was referring Saul to was one that applies to the least of the brethren (Matthew 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.). Since Vatican II recognizes Reformed Christians as brethren, to question the Reformed churches or their adherents would be tantamount to questioning Jesus himself, on your grounds.
The problem, of course, is that persecution and questioning are not analogous.
BC continued:
No.
a) Just because you don’t accept one of the premises of a statement doesn’t mean that the statement begs the question.
b) “It ain’t brag if it’s fact,” is actually not true. In other words, arrogance is not limited to boasting about merely imagined greatness. And Rome would be arrogant even on those grounds. But …
c) Yes, we assert that Rome’s supposed “charism” is only claimed, not actual. But that assertion does not “beg the question.” Rather it offers Roman advocates the opportunity to substantiate the claim.
d) But instead of substantiation, we get the kind of response you provided.
e) And the continued absence of substantiation leads us to conclude that we were right to suppose that Rome’s bragging was not just arrogant because it lacked humility (which it does), but also because it lacks truth.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Sean, 654:
“Karl Barth hated Roman catholicism with a passion.”
Didn’t know that. I need to read more,
Andrew
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 2:23 pm
All,
Since the Galatians thread is lagging, and since this one seems to be veering off into all kinds of directions, I thought I would highlight another of the passages I alluded to earlier, one that we have yet to really discuss. Here it is, with the parts I want to comment on in bold:
A few comments:
1. The whole discussion about fruitfulness and its resulting entrance into the eternal kingdom is rooted in the believer’s participation in the divine nature, which coincides perfectly with Jesus’ emphasis on union (“I in them, them in me”), as well as Paul’s (“in Christ”) and John’s (“abide in him”). Union rather than imputation seems to be the consistent emphasis on the part of the NT writers.
2. Faith alone, for Peter, is not enough for entering the eternal kingdom. It must be “added to” or “supplemented” with other spiritual fruits, the final of which is “love.” This is what James argues more directly when he says that “faith alone” justified neither Abraham nor Rahab, but “faith was active along with their works” (and in that context he cites familiar “loving your neighbor fulfills the law” refrain). It’s not hard to see the connection between this and “faith working through love.”
3. If these qualities are in us, we are “fruitful,” but if they are lacking, we are not just unfruitful Christians, but “blind.”
4. By reminding his readers that they had “escaped the corruption that is in the world” and were “cleansed from their former sins,” Peter seems to be saying (1) that such could be the case for people who fail to “enter the eternal kingdom,” and (2) that it was their “former sins” from which they were cleansed, and not all their sins, past, present, and future.
5. At the end, Peter ties together very explicitly the “practicing of these qualities” on the one hand, and “gaining an entrance into the eternal kingdom” on the other.
Are these five points absolutely necessitated by this passage? Of course not, these verses could be read in other ways with varying levels of consistency or distortion. But my question is a simple and rather humble one:
Who is more likely to have written something like this, a person who thinks we will be finally saved via the extra nos imputation of alien righteousness through faith alone, or a person who believes that we will be saved by participating sacramentally in Christ and increasing in our sonship through bearing the fruit of the Spirit by exhibiting a faith that works through love?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Seems loving to me, Jason. Let’s continue to learn together, as we are able. I actually spoke relatively highly of this post, in my latest post, over at c2c. There’s a fellow by the name of “nick” who doesn’t like the ol’ active obedience stuff. Well, Jason, if I read right, you and I are of the “no hope without it” camp. He’s not.
Or maybe that’s the Jason of 3 years ago, that you need to help some of us understand where you are at – do you feel that your studies in the last few years take you away from much of what you wrote on your blog in prior years? You may want to make your feelings more clear. What you have done is public, and I can see someone random going around your blog, feeling a little lost.
Whatever, it’s cool. I don’t mean to play police. I’m just trying to be friendly.
Search me, O God, and know my heart!
Try me and know my thoughts!
And see if there be any grievous way in me,
and lead me in the way everlasting!
(Psalm 139:23-24 ESV)
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Whoops, missed this one:
“Regarding Sola Fide, I have become convinced that the teaching that sinners are justified by a once-for-all declaration of acquittal on God’s part, based upon the imputation of Christ’s righteousness received by faith alone, is not reflective of the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. ”
Yeah, you’ve repudiated. Nevermind, Mr. Stellman.
Peace.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Jason 660:
Sounds very much like a Calvinist to me.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Possibly, or like anyone who believes the Bible (which teaches election).
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:54 pm
In what way does Rome “teach election”?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 3:58 pm
Yes, number 666!!
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:00 pm
John, you can look it up for yourself. This is a red herring anyway. If you want to deal with any of the points I made, feel free. Or if you want to show that Peter says anything about election in that passage that you don’t think I can affirm, go for it. But I’m not going to get sidetracked by laying out how Rome teaches election.
johnbugay said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:05 pm
You brought it up in 664.
You can’t answer (as I did in 631) how you know what “the essence of the church” is (one clue may be found in the account of “apostolic succesion” in Acts 20); nor can you answer how Rome “teaches election”. That one is a funny one. It’s no “red herring”. It’s all “of a piece”, as they say.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm
YOU brought it up in 663.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Bultmann says:
For this reason Christianity speaks of original sin. By this it means nothing other than this: That we come into our own present situtation as those seeking to make their own way; that we come out ofa history and exist in a world which was and is guided by this understanding of community; and that the understanding which has guided us from the outset is that everyone seeks his own, and that no one listens seriously to others. It is a world of lovelessness. And people rise in revolt against this admission and this judgment again and again, even if only by blinding themselves to reality with illusions and by busying themselves in apparent love for mankind. For Christianity’s love is not something that can be presented by programs, and implemented in organizations. It is rather something which always belongs to the moment, to my particular moment. It is quite true that in regard to particular ills and sufferings of the present, just such a love may demand a program of aid and an organization. Yet love is not exhausted and assured in them. On the contrary, programs, organizations and institutions can actually become a cloak for lovelessness, and can blind me to the real demand ofthe moment, and to the concrete “You”who encounters me. Lovelessness and pride, i.e., struggling against the judgment or sin, are the constant crisis of faith. Further! If the scandal of Christianity lies in the proclamation of forgiveness in this single Word of Christ, and nowhere else, then faith stands in the constant crisis which this scandal creates: What right has this proclamation to he regarded as the only legitimate one? What right has an ordinary person whom I do not know, and who does not know me, to promise me in the name of God the forgiveness of my sins, merely because he happens to be appointed to the proclamation office of the Church? But does this mean anything other than that one is actually striving against the concrete, actual judgment that has been pronounced, pronounced against him? That he may be willing to accept it as a general judgment, and to tell himself that he will recognize forgiveness in this general way, whereas it is something which can only be accorded as something concrete, to him, who is himself a concrete person? And does that mean anything other than that he will perhaps recognize the idea of sin, the idea of forgiveness, the idea of God, but not God himself? That is what Christianity means by God’s incarnation: the reality of God is not that of the idea but of the concrete happening; and the reality of his forgiveness is met with only in the concrete world legitimated by him.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:11 pm
PS thought provoking…maybe. Anyway, it’s from his essay, “Crisis of Faith.”
That’s all she wrote,
Andrew
Jeff Cagle said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Jason (#660):
Thanks for bringing the discussion back around. It seems that questions of imputation cannot be put off. :-)
On your points:
1. Yes, I agree — union is a more prominent theme than imputation in the NT writers. They seem without exception to teach that there is no justification (Protestant) without sanctification (Protestant), and union brings that together: we receive the duplex gratia by faith, at one instant.
2. This is an over-read. The reason is that we know from other Scriptures that there are at least four categories of people.
(a) Those who have a sincere faith and persevere.
(b) Those who are saved, but whose works are “burned up” (1 Cor 3)
(c) Those who say “Lord, Lord” but do not enter the kingdom of heaven
(d) Those who profess no faith at all.
And, we also know that Scripture speaks in ways that are evidential and ways that are causative.
So first, you have to establish (“without Q-B, say no more, say no more”) that Peter *is* saying that those who do not supplement, are blind, etc. are actually going to fail to enter the kingdom, as opposed to having a less-than-rich entry.
Clearly he’s talking about group (a); what implications do his words have for groups (b) and (c)?
You fill in the gap with certain assumptions that aren’t way out from left field, but aren’t established either.
3. Yes.
4. (1) No, he doesn’t say that nor can that be reasonably inferred from the words. At best it is a suggestion. (2) Yes, but his words carry no implications about present or future.
That is, Peter affirms that they were cleansed of past sins; he says nothing one way or the other about future sins.
5. Any entrance at all? Or richly provided?
I’m just saying that with as much talk as there is about least and greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and rewards of various kinds (do we really know what that will look like?) that there does seem to be a differentiated entrance into the kingdom in some way or another.
Peter is certainly speaking of a well-rewarded entrance. Is he also saying that this is the only kind of entrance? That’s not nearly as clear.
6. You didn’t have a 6, but I would suggest adding this in:
What does he mean by “confirming your calling and election”? Does that push us towards a more evidentiary reading of this passage instead of a causative reading?
7. And this also:
When Peter says,
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade. This inheritance is kept in heaven for you, who through faith are shielded by God’s power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time. In all this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials. These have come so that the proven genuineness of your faith—of greater worth than gold, which perishes even though refined by fire—may result in praise, glory and honor when Jesus Christ is revealed. Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the end result of your faith, the salvation of your souls. 1 Pet 1.3 – 9
Would he have written this if he were saying that faith + something else is needed for salvation? Or if he thought that their inheritance was contingent on the exercise of their wayward free-wills?
How about this?
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. – 1 Pet 5.10
8. And finally, how do you connect the argument in 2 Peter 1 with the larger purpose of the book, which appears to be in chapter 2?
Here’s what I mean: the false teachers in ch. 2 are also said to “have known Jesus” and “escaped the corruption of the world” (2.20). Yet we know from 1 John 2 that these were “never of us.”
Peter uses very similar language about these false teachers as he does about the individuals in chapter 1 who are “blind.” Does this suggest that those individuals, also, are in the category of “never of us”?
—-
To push the point this way: The whole notion of contingent salvation needs to wrestle with “depart from Me; I never knew you.”
dghart said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Jason, that participation in the divine nature business has theosis written all over it. I think the Eastern Church is calling you and the rest at CTC.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 4:21 pm
Minor correction @ 660: the quoted passage is from 2 Peter 1:3-11. Maybe the mods can correct it.
paigebritton said,
August 29, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Done.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 5:52 pm
As a resource for those interested, I have posted at my blog Jason’s five points from #660 and added some relevant teaching from John Calvin’s Commentary on 2 Peter.
http://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2012/08/calvin-on-2-peter-1.html
Bryan Cross said,
August 29, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Darryl, (re: #648)
Questions about and criticisms of papal infallibility do not falsify what I said in #574, namely, that the notion that one cannot have a ‘fair’ or ‘just’ discussion with a Church that claims to be infallible under certain conditions begs the question against the Catholic position. Likewise, questions about and criticisms of papal infallibility do not falsify what I said in #577, namely, that the notion that only persons without any sin can be divinely protected from error begs the question against the Catholic position.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
markmcculley said,
August 29, 2012 at 8:13 pm
There were some “experiemntal” puritans who advocated “the practical syllogism” and they read II Peter 1 as teaching that we must add works and virtues to our lives in order to gain and maintain assurance. Of course, we could never add enough for us to be really sure, but they thought of this as a good thing. And after all, now that “we are in the family”, the law/grace antithesis (if ever there was one) is now gone and the Father will be glad to accept even a little additional “merit” from us that grace has enabled us to produce it.
I agree with Walter Marshall (The Gospel Mystery of Sanctification) who pointed out that II Peter 1 teaches that we have to make our calling and election sure in order to even know if our virtues are acceptable and pleasing to God.
In other words, we need to think about what gospel it was by which we were called. Were we called by a gospel which conditioned our end on what God would do in us? Were we called by a gospel which promised an ontological break with sin, so that we would be dispostionally better than other folks? Were we called by a gospel which promised some “union” (or mutual indwelling) by which the Creator/creature distinction was overcome by our participation in the nature of Deity?
Or were we called by the true gospel which says that we must be accepted by God only in Christ’s death and resurrection for the elect alone, so that this death would be our death legally, without a need of some other death on our part? To put it another way, were we justified by God placing us legally into Christ’s death and resurrection or was Christ merely the first to be justified and and set a pattern so that we could be justified by the Spirit “uniting” us to the power of His resurrection so that we ourselves could do what He did and thus be justified by what God what did in us?
Those who want to play it safe ask why decide between us in Christ’s death or Christ’s work in us, why not both to stay on the safe side. But Galatians 2:21 warns that it’s one or the other—if you can be justified by your participation in the Spirit enabling you to satisfy the requirement of the law (adjusted for family), then you don’t need Christ’s death as your satisfaction to God’s strict law because “Christ in you” will be enough, and thus Galatians concludes—if that’s the case, then Christ died for no purpose.
Roman Catholics of course are careful to say that their works are the right kind of works, and the evidence of Christ’s presence in them. But Galatians pushes the antithesis—before or after regeneration, before or after union, it makes no difference, justification is not by works, not by any kinds of works.
Most Protestants (along with Roman Catholics) do not test their works by the gospel doctrine of righteousness. Instead of making their calling and election by the gospel, they presume to prove their calling and their gospel by their works. Most people seem to think you can be wrong about gospel doctrine, and nevertheless still show off your salvation by your actions. Not that they ever make “strict” judgments. But they do suggest that doubts are in order about those who don’t put in more effort into the project of adding virtues, Thus they themselves build up more “dead works”, because their misplaced faith is an abomination to God.
kim/nannykim said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Mark (678) The apostle John, in I John ,states that one of the reasons he wrote his epistle was, “These things, I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life.”
This letter states how we can know we have eternal life —There is a place for testing true belief in Christ. You have said , “they presume to prove their calling and their gospel by their works.” John DOES say that there are tests by which we can examine ourselves to “know that you have eternal life”. Many of these tests are an examination of how we are living (our works). Here are some examples:
1 John 1:6 If we say that we have fellowship with Him an yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do practice the truth; 7but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin.”
1:10 If we say that we have not sinned , we make Him a liar, and His word is not in us.
2: 3 And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. 4 The one who says , ‘I have come to know Him,’ and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; 5 but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: 6 the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.”
2:9 The one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now.”
2:17 And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever.”
2:19 If you know that He is righteous, you know that every one also who practices righteousness is born of Him.”
3:8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; ……9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are obvious: any one who does not practice righteousness is not of God , nor the one who does not love his brother.”
3:14 We know that we have passed out of death into life because we love the brethren. He who does not love abides in death.
3:17 But whoever has the world’s goods and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in Him? 18 Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth. 19 We shall KNOW BY THIS that we are of the truth and SHALL ASSURE our heart before Him
So there is a place for looking at works. He also lists some of the things we are to believe in–ie the name of His Son Jesus Christ (3:23), confessing Jesus has come in the flesh (4:2), confesses Jesus is the Son of God (4:15).
But overall note how he says we are to have confidence in the day of judgment-4:17–it is the whole concept of love–16And we have come to know and have believed the love which God has for us. God is love, and the one who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this, love is perfected with us, that we may have confidence in the day of judgment; BECAUSE as He is , so also are we in this world.”
As I Corinthians states in 13:2 “And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.” Love then is a key . This is why Catholics say faith without love is not a true faith. This then is a key test.
jsm52 said,
August 29, 2012 at 9:56 pm
@678:
Roman Catholics of course are careful to say that their works are the right kind of works, and the evidence of Christ’s presence in them. But Galatians pushes the antithesis—before or after regeneration, before or after union, it makes no difference, justification is not by works, not by any kinds of works.
Well said!
Andrew McCallum said,
August 29, 2012 at 11:10 pm
Jason (re: 610),
I tried my best to demonstrate it from Gal. 5, but despite never refuting what I said you have continued to say you disagree.
The way we left Gal 5/6 was that you still had not differentiated your position to where I could say we clearly disagreed (see my #468). I don’t believe you responded to my post. You may remember I was hoping that you might give me a more robust Tridentine sounding theology of justification.
As long as you’re agreeing with all the NT writers, you should agree with James, who doesn’t just say that we “cannot be saved by a faith which is devoid of works,” but that that very “faith devoid of works” is itself what he calls “dead faith,” and “faith alone.”.
Yep, I agree with this. Faith devoid of works is dead faith. This is a central them in James – the nature of faith. He does not talk about the mechanics of justification but he certainly does speak to the issue of what constitutes true saving faith and what the evidence for true faith is.
You’re just working from the list paradigm here, as evidenced by your only being able to see “works that I perform and present to God for approval” whenever you read the word “works” in Paul.
I was making the point that in the context of those passages that speak of the means by which God justifies us (so not James), we are told that we are saved by faith apart from works (that’s the biblical phrase) rather than “justification by faith plus Spirit-wrought works of love,” which is the phrase you use in #556. But then secondly I thought you might explain the same biblical phrase when you approach the matter with a distinctly Roman Catholic paradigm. So yes, I’m using a distinctly Reformed paradigm (IMO, it just confuses matters to call this the “list” paradigm – Bryan’s description of such a thing does not appear to us to describe what we believe). So what happens when we substitute the Catholic one?
Concerning “playing by the rules of CtC,” I simply mean that when on Catholic ground as much as I can I try to utilize some of the means by which Roman Catholic theology is done. I don’t for instance paste large decontextualized passages of Scripture which some Protestants are wont to do.
Cheers for now….
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 2:29 am
Jeff,
Thanks for engaging my points.
I am a bit uncomfortable with the choices you’re giving me, they seem too beholden to God’s hidden decrees or something. Why can’t it simply be the case that Peter is addressing baptized people who, through that sacrament and the union with Christ it brings about (Rom. 6:1ff), have begun to participate in the divine nature, and yet who nonetheless must add to their faith the fruits of the Spirit in order to be finally saved?
In other words, a Catholic paradigm, according to which grace is given freely through baptism/faith but must be nurtured through Spirit-wrought works of love, is a perfectly natural lens through which to view this passage. And if Peter held to that paradigm, then these words would have come very freely and naturally from his quill (much more so than if he held to an imputation paradigm, especially since by the Catholic paradigm he would avoid inviting speculation about who is and isn’t elect).
Concerning the part where Peter says that by being fruitful his readers “will be richly provided an entrance into God’s eternal kingdom,” you wrote:
While I will grant that it is possible that Peter is merely contrasting a “rich” inheritance with a paltry one, I find that interpretation wanting, for the following reasons:
1. I find nothing in the actual text that gives that indication. His description of the unfruitful as “blind” sounds more like the kind of thing that would be said of someone in danger of eternal judgment rather than one merely liable to losing out on a few rewards in heaven.
2. The surrounding context also makes it clear that Peter’s warning is more serious than that. In 2:9, after warning his readers about how that God has always been able to distinguish the righteous from the wicked, he says, “the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment.” So while there are greater and lesser rewards in heaven, this does not seem to be at the forefront of Peter’s mind.
3. His language of a “rich entrance into the kingdom” strongly evokes Jesus’ language from the parable of the talents, which Peter himself heard: “Well done, good and faithful servant, you have been faithful in little, now rule over much.” And the unfaithful servant in that parable was not just less-richly saved, he was cast into hellfire.
(Cont’d below)
Bob S said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:09 am
606:
A claim to divine protection from error under certain conditions is arrogant only if one doesn’t have that charism. If one has that protection, then claiming that one has it is not arrogant, but is simply speaking the truth. So the charge of arrogance presupposes that the magisterium does not have that charism, and in that way begs the question against the Catholic position.
Our inquisitioner, ahem iterrogationi . . uhm . . . interlocutor builds his whole argument on two conditionals, two “ifs” in order to return full circle to his only real answer to any objections at all in this discussion, much more the rock solid infallible “stop the mouth of the gainsayers” conclusion and not just a possibility that hinges on whether those conditionals are actually fulfilled or proven to be true: “It begs the question against the Catholic position”. Case closed, boys and girls. So now you know/didn’t you know?
IOW it would be arrogant to claim something you don’t have.
But Rome has it.
Therefore to charge Rome with arrogance is to . . . . . Beg the Question.
Rather can we say non sequitur?
Rebuttal: If Rome not only claims to possess x (arrogance), but she actually does possess x (arrogance), then it is not unlawful to charge Rome with x (arrogance).
More to the point: Rome actually posses x, but she does so in a spirit of pride or arrogance.
Ergo it is lawful to charge Rome with pride or arrogance.
True, one could argue Rome truly possesses the spirit of humility.
And since the spirit of humility is antithetical to arrogance,
therefore Rome is not arrogant.
Unless you want to argue that the charism of infallibility contains the virtue of humility and since Rome posses the one, she possesses the other and therefore cannot partake of arrogance.
The real question – which NB our interlocutor begged – was whether or not Rome really does possess x (Perhaps Mr. C hasn’t been here before. We have yet to see a credible appeal and argument from Scripture, reason and history for it), but regardless, we haven’t even got there yet because the gentleman also insists faith in the infallible Roman church/bishop proceeds faith in Christ, if not that faith in infallible Rome is essentially faith in Christ (574).
Huh? But what kind of spiritual wolf in sheep’s clothing would say something like that?
Oh, CtC. Called to Confusion. Never mind. That explains it.
But to continue, Romanism is a vicious, wicked and stupefying fideism that invariably seems to produce the same in its adherents at least on this site, if the example above is any indication.
God after all, does give people over to their idols. One of those being the pet phrase: “Begging the question” which slips off the tongue so readily because it’s a really hard habitus theologiae to break. Yet pray God he delivers Mr. Cross before he further hardens unto damnation in hell, however much he and the rest of CtC might think death only a “tragic shortcut” to purgatory.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:12 am
Jeff,
(Cont’d from above)
Well, my argument is that Peter has expressly said (echoing James) that our faith must be “added to” in order to result in our final salvation. So my answer is “Yes, Peter would say the things you cite if he also believed that more than faith is needed, since he clearly said as much in II Pet. 1, and since the same Peter wrote both these letters.” Plus, Peter in the passage you quote talks about our “love” for the One we have not seen, and not just about our faith.
Not so fast. You claim that “we know” from I John 2:19 that those who forsake Christ “were never of us.” But is John saying that such is the case with every single person who professes faith but then walks away? If you look at the preceding verse, he is explicitly talking about the “many antichrists who have come” who then “left us.”
So to answer your question, no, Peter’s description of the unfruitful as “blind” does not suggest that they were “never of us.” At least, not until you make the case, and make it without assuming an interpretation of a related text that I do not share.
No one doubts that “many” will fall into this category, but that does not mean that every single professor who defects falls into it. You would have to prove that point.
David Gadbois said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:13 am
The Protestant case doesn’t depend on all of the specific exegetical choices Jeff C. has made (most of which are quite sound). Peter’s point can simply be that perseverance in the Christian life is “[the] way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom ” in that it is the means by which we pass through this life and move on to the next in the new heavens and new earth, not that this secures our stake in the new heavens and new earth forensically.
Another way of framing it, is to say that “entrance into the eternal kingdom” is not an equivalent concept to justification on either a linguistic or conceptual basis.
Contrast this with Paul’s direct link between justification and faith in his epistles, where the grammar and various prepositions establish that faith is an instrumental cause of justification, and works are explicitly excluded as being said cause. This sort of causal grammatical construction exists nowhere in the NT in relation to works, with the sole exception of James’ epistle (and that opens up a whole different debate).
David Gadbois said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:34 am
Jason said You’re just working from the list paradigm here, as evidenced by your only being able to see “works that I perform and present to God for approval” whenever you read the word “works” in Paul
It is more than that, it is *any works at all* that are excluded. No list paradigm is required to negate all forms of works.
If we, like good exegetes, note that Paul uses “works” in different senses, then we have to examine the immediate context to determine Paul’s meaning in any given case. The problem for you is that we run into passages such as Ephesians 2:9, where Paul doesn’t qualify his use of the term (ουκ εξ εργων) to narrow in on a subset of works (such as works of the law), so any and all works are in view. This is confirmed by the fact that in the very next verse (2:10) he goes on to say that God has saved us *unto* good works as Christians (επι εργοις), making it highly unlikely that this category of good works is not at the very least included in the former.
dgh said,
August 30, 2012 at 6:10 am
Bryan, as I said before, I don’t care whether a question “falsifies” what you assert. Just because it may not falsify something in your mind doesn’t make your assertion true. I am raising reasons to doubt both papal infallibility and your defense of it. Nothing I say will change your mind. But maybe you won’t fool others.
dgh said,
August 30, 2012 at 6:15 am
Jason, like I keep saying, I see no reason in your arguments for you to become Roman Catholic rather than Eastern Orthodox. The East has everything Rome does minus Bryan Cross.
jedpark said,
August 30, 2012 at 7:30 am
The East has everything Rome does except the Pope.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:05 am
Jason (683),
Well, my argument is that Peter has expressly said (echoing James) that our faith must be “added to” in order to result in our final salvation.
Yes Jason, but this argument does not really make your case yet. We are left to wonder as to why faith must be “added to.” Is it because 1) faith and works are so inextricably intertwined with each other that a so-called faith without works being is no real faith at all. Or, is it because 2) our justification is incomplete and our works increase our justification. My argument is that if we assume #2 we are assuming something about the message of James that is just not there.
I hope you will recognize the verbiage of Trent in my option #2 above. Trent is unequivocal in it’s message, but I cannot say the same thing for you. I would take a lesson from the Tridentine Fathers if you are sure you want to go the Roman Catholic route. But maybe you are not so sure…..?
davie said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:09 am
I am wondering how both sides (Protestant and Catholic) would deal with the warnings given to the churches in the early part of Revelation? The warnings seem to suggest an ongoing need for repentance and deeds in order to be saved and not just faith. Some examples:
2:5 …do the deeds you did at first, or else I am coming to you , and will remove your lampstand…….7..To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life…
2:26 And he who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to Him I will give authority over the nations.
3:2 …….I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 Remember therefore what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent…..5 He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments; and I will not erase his name from the book of life, and I will confess his name before My Father, and before His angels.
In John’s explanations here there is the need to repent , do deeds, and to continue to walk in the faith in order to overcome and gain heaven. Would not justification include this ongoing process in order to reach heaven? How can we throw out the process that leads to our glorification and say it is not part of justification? Is not salvation a process? Is the working out of our salvation automatic as the Protestant side seems to infer? Protestants would seem to hold that I am justified at a point and time and then everything will automatically flow from this point. If it was automatic why would the Bible be so full of these exhortations to live by the Spirit, to repent, to do the deeds etc–do the Protestants only see these as the means and if they are means and are necessary then how can you not say there is a process that is indeed necessary for our salvation. Revelations warnings do not say to the churches to him who has faith alone I will grant to eat of the tree of life etc.
David Bishop said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:50 am
The gospel is a collection of Biblical propositions that concern Christ’s person and work. These propositions are dogmatic statements which God asserts are true. These propositions, when considered together, complete the propositional assertion which states that God is just. These propositions can only be agreed to by the elect, and only because their sins have been charged to Christ and because Christ has taken the punishment for the guilt of their sins to Himself by dying on a cross in their stead; and only after the elect have been charged with Christ’s righteousness resulting in the indwelling presence of the Spirit who enables them to understand and agree with God that the propositional claims concerning Christ’s person and work are indeed true.
davie said,
August 30, 2012 at 12:40 pm
ps true or false: Berkhof states: In the mystical union with their Lord believers are made to share the experiences of Christ. Just as He entered upon His glory by the pathway of sufferings and death, they too can enter upon their eternal reward only through sanctification.” (pg 650)]
If true–then sanctification is necessary—so how can Protestants separate it–saying it is needed but not needed for justification . If justification saves then nothing else should be needed, thus justification for the Catholic would be an ongoing process, right?
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Darryl,
When I met with James White, I found that he was much more willing and able to make a case against Rome than for Geneva. So I finally said to him, “Almost thou persuadest me to become Orthodox.” The difference between him and you, though, was that he didn’t think that was a very good idea (but you two are similar in that neither of you seems to think that establishing Protestant ecclesiology requires anything more than attacking the papacy).
jsm52 said,
August 30, 2012 at 1:03 pm
2 Pet. 1.1: “obtained a like precious faith with us in the righteousness of our God and the Saviour Jesus Christ…”
This echoes Paul’s words in Phi. 3 – 9 and be found in him, not having a righteousness of mine own, even that which is of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith…
and Romans 3:
[Note that Paul makes a distinction between law and works, so as to exclude anything of ours as when it comes to our justification, even our salvation. “Where then is the glorying? It is excluded.” This would support David’s point from Eph. 2:9 @ 685.]
This understanding, that man is justified by faith apart works is easily understood as the same with which Peter is writing as he opens his epistle. The admonitions to godly living that follow have the same thrust one finds elsewhere. We are saved by the righteousness of God that comes through faith for the purpose of righteousness as evidenced by godly living, i.e. the fruit of the Spirit that Peter mentions. Being justified through faith alone doesn’t render these admonitions empty. Rather, because we are still sinners we need the Word of God in the imperative to convict us, sober us and direct us through faith and repentance, that we might more earnestly cling to Christ only, who died for our sins (to be aware of how far we continually fall short) that we might live more faithfully unto God.
As to “the blind”… these can be understood as the hypocrites, those who outwardly profess, but inwardly have no true faith in Christ. They have forgotten the cleansing of sin promised in their baptism in that their repentance wasn’t accompanied by faith. And Peter’s warning, if heeded, might yet result yet in true faith for these.
And overall, by attending to the things Peter admonishes, a believer will be all the more sure of God’s gracious call and election, not as an additional cause securing that salvation, but evidence affirming God’s gratuitous and free mercy, by the working of the Holy Spirit, through faith.
Jason Loh said,
August 30, 2012 at 1:16 pm
Protestant ecclesiology emphasises the primacy of the Word in its oral and sacramental forms. This is because the church is a “creature of the gospel” (creatura evangelii) … therefore, the church stands or falls with the gospel as justification by faith alone. The “charter” of the church then is *liberty/ freedom* (Gal 5). To be justified by faith alone (sola fide) is freedom = to be in Christ alone (solus Christus) via the Word (sola scriptura) in its oral and sacramental form — that is by proclamation alone is faith created (Rom 10:13), and where faith is, there the church is. “My sheep hear my Voice” (John 10:27).
johnbugay said,
August 30, 2012 at 1:31 pm
Jason Stellman 689:
To cite a famous popular author:
So if you eliminate the papacy, you’re left with what’s left. And if you eliminate the mono-episcopacy as a later development, then no “ecclesiology” really was “essential” to the church. And if you were to read real history, even real Roman Catholic theologians, you would understand that both the episcopacy and papacy are later developments.
If these are not “the essence” of the church (and I believe they are not), then the loose confederation of local churches (believing more or less the same Apostolic doctrine, and on their own, with the Holy Spirit’s guidance) is what you are left with.
After the Apostolic period (and even during it), there were “factions”, not only across the lines of Jew/Greek, but also across geographic lines.
There really was no “One True Church(TM)” until Constantine got ahold of it.
Jed Paschall said,
August 30, 2012 at 2:24 pm
Jason,
neither of you seems to think that establishing Protestant ecclesiology requires anything more than attacking the papacy
You are joking right? This seems like this is more sour grapes than a fair representation of the Reformed camp you just left. In debates over the legitimacy of the papacy, criticisms of RCC’s ecclesiology are fair game, but I am not sure how you are squaring the circle in claiming that DGH or others, especially those who advocate a historic, confessional ecclesiology, haven’t made a case for Protestant ecclesiology. Hart wrote an entire book on it – The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, Clark’s work in Recovering the Reformed Confession is in the same line. But, maybe the debate can shift in this direction, because none of us here believe that Rome’s ecclesiology is an improvement on the Presbyterian model, and given the Leithart ordeal, you should know and speak better of our ecclesiology since you utilized it once upon a time to defend the gospel (it’s truly sad how some things change). So maybe you think Rome is superior on this account, fine maybe we can argue that point, but to argue that those in the Reformed circles you were most closely attached to didn’t have a robust Reformed ecclesiology seems to be disingenuous and a misrepresentation of their positions.
But, the fact of the matter is from a Reformed perspective is our ecclesiology cannot stand without a proper understanding of the gospel. The reason why the debates here have centered on the gospel and justification is because you have placed the cart before the horse in vaunting ecclesiology over the gospel. For us there is no ecclesiology without the gospel, since you can’t have a church without members who have credible confessions of faith to fill it.
isaiah. said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Wow, you really believe that, John?
isaiah. said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:10 pm
Hey Jason (694),
I became Orthodox (9 years ago) because the Catholic Church didn’t get a hold of me first. It was easier, too, coming from a Protestant Evangelical background, because I was able to punt on things like purgatory and the papacy (plus I didn’t have to talk about the outcomes of the Reformation/Counter-Reformation/Trent: “Those are inherently Western problems” they would say).
It wasn’t until I laid aside my deeply held prejudices, biases and – dare I say, unjust hatred – that I was able to come to the light of the truth. (Not to dis my Orthodox brethren: nothin’ but love, y’all!)
ih.
P.S. Speaking of hatred, why such deep-seated animosity for Bryan Cross? What did he do to y’all to deserve your wrath?
johnbugay said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:11 pm
Isaiah 699: Of course there has always been just one “church”, but the kind of nonsense about determining who was “in charge” (and the hierarchical structure) of the “One True Church(TM)”, while rearing its ugly head from time to time, never became institutionalized until Constantine called a general council. What do you have on that before Nicea?
See this link, for example:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/07/on-church-authority-as-harmful-impulse.html
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Isaiah,
“Speaking of hatred, why such deep-seated animosity for Bryan Cross? What did he do to y’all to deserve your wrath?”
If anything has been said on my part, I sincerely apologize. I’m going to admit, finding all these blogs and comments and, dare I say, “wars” among the factions here in cyberspace, has been an eye opener.
I’m going to answer your question by highlighting Bultmann’s words from above:
“On the contrary, programs, organizations and institutions can actually become a cloak for lovelessness, and can blind me to the real demand ofthe moment, and to the concrete “You”who encounters me.”
I do not believe that the actions of called to communion really take into account the “you’s” that they are trying to affect. They are not actually considering the harm they could be causing to Christians who are still wrestling with the faith, and therefore, in our judgement, as reformed Christians, are causing harm to souls that Christ himself has claimed ownership of.
I mean what I say in all sense of love and seriously and sincerity.
I do not believe that the Roman Catholics who desire to bring reformed Christians “into communion with the Church Christ founded” are working out a desire to spread the love of Christ. That, I know must be very hard to hear. But what I am seeing is a concerted and focused effort, as delineated by the mission statement and articles at Called to Communion, to truly try to cause members of reformed churches to join the Roman Catholic Church.
And it makes me, as someone raised a Pelagian, sick.
If the members of Called to Communion really are trying to increase their agape through winning us over to the truth and reality that they perceive, and are truly confused, well, then I grant there could be some of that.
However…
I perceive the people doing this act are very aware of what they are doing. And quite frankly, I want an apology on behalf of C2C. Bryan Cross seems to be the leading protagonist of that effort. I think that may start to explain why you are reading less than exactly “sweet niceties” around here.
But it’s the movement more broadly. I am actually offended, from what I know, of what C2C represents.
But I am just one guy who found you all around May of this year. I could be off in the weeds. But that’s me, calling a spade, a spade.
Only by the Grace of God do I go forth,
Andrew
PS if there are actions on behalf of reformed Christians to try to do “lay aggressive evangelism” against catholics, I want to hear about it. I’m sure some of that is going on. But C2C is clear in what they are doing and why they are doing it. And I don’t feel good about it all. I want an apology.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 30, 2012 at 4:23 pm
JJS: Why can’t it simply be the case that Peter is addressing baptized people who, through that sacrament and the union with Christ it brings about (Rom. 6:1ff), have begun to participate in the divine nature, and yet who nonetheless must add to their faith the fruits of the Spirit in order to be finally saved?
Well, because he doesn’t actually say that. There is no language of “beginning to participate.”
Rather, he says
* God gave us great and precious promises,
* So that we may participate in the divine nature (ινα δια τουτων γενησθε θειας κοινωνοι φυσεως — aorist again, if I’m not mistaken).
* Having escaped the corruption that is in the world — definitely a past event.
I read the “may participate in the divine nature” as a binary event — one participates, or one does not.
I could be wrong, but that reading is based on the notion of kingdom transfer. One is either a son of the kingdom of Christ or a son of the kingdom of darkness — this is a major theme of John.
The really sticky point is v. 9: But whoever does not have [these qualities] is nearsighted and blind, forgetting that they have been cleansed from their past sins.
And I can see how someone might read that as a reference to defectible justification.
But here’s the rub. Who are these people, and to which kingdom do they belong? Do they have an inheritance that will never spoil or fade, or don’t they?
If on the one hand they are in fact “participants in the divine nature” and also “cleansed of their past sins” in an ontological sense, then how is it that they are also “nearsighted and blind”? If they have escaped the corruption in the world, how is it that they are now corrupt?
Are not nearsightedness and blindness qualities of a sinful person? What kind of cleansing is this that leaves one nearsighted and blind?
If on the other hand they are in the kingdom of darkness, then how is it that they were cleansed of their past sins?
Peter presents us with a non-straightforward puzzle.
One piece of the solution has to be, I think, an acknowledgment that either (a) the cleansing is from an outward perspective (“in man’s eyes”), or (b) that the cleansing is genuinely inward, but is not ontologically perfect.
Else, they wouldn’t be blind.
If we take that second route, we soon conclude that justification (meaning being made a child of God and forgiven of sins, which is the Biblical language) cannot be based on ontology. And then infusion is out the window, and then …
If we take the first route, then your interpretation of ongoing justification falls to the ground.
I don’t see, when thinking it through carefully, how a defectible justification can stand.
Either justification is based on an ontological change, in which case sinless perfection is required and becoming blind is impossible; or else, it is based on something else, such as forgiveness apart from ontological change — and that gives us imputation and a justification that is indefectible because it is based on the merits of Christ and not our own.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 30, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Jason, BTW — I re-read Matt and Luke last night. I’m seeing a lot of this: “And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, “Take heart, my son; your sins are forgiven.”” (Matt 9)
But none of this: Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and Baptism — CCC 977 (prooftexts follow, but they don’t support the point).
Dennis said,
August 30, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Jeff,
I’ve been reading this post since the beginning but have refrained from commenting until now. I’m a cradle Catholic who is not a part of Called to Communion. Just a curious Catholic.
Regarding post #703. I’ve read it and have read 2 Peter and I’m trying to understand your understanding. I think it’s pretty obvious…just trying to understand how you’re reading it.
But here’s the rub. Who are these people, and to which kingdom do they belong? Do they have an inheritance that will never spoil or fade, or don’t they?
My understanding of 2 Peter is he’s talking to baptized people. v 9 makes that fairly clear when he reminds them that the shortsighted are “forgetful of their past sins” which would have occurred at their baptism.
I also think you’re reading this too hard. What Peter is saying in 2 Peter 1 is that:
1. God gave us great promises (v4)
2. Try to supplement your faith with virtue (i.e. works) (v. 5)
3. Peter draws a line: Virtue–>Knowledge–>Self Control–>Devotion–>Mutual Affection–>Love
4. Therefore, the promise occurs from faith working through love
5. If you have faith working through love, you will be fruitful (v. 8)
6. If you don’t, then you are shortsighted and blind
What Peter is saying is that faith is clearly not enough. You must have faith, virtue, knowledge, self control, devotion, mutual affection, and love.
If you don’t, you’re blind.
davie said,
August 30, 2012 at 7:08 pm
Andrew (702), you stated, ” if there are actions on behalf of reformed Christians to try to do “lay aggressive evangelism” against catholics, I want to hear about it”. I don’t know about the aggressive evangelism part of the reformed, but they are aggressive at attacking the Catholics at their conferences at Ligonier ministries. Just listen to some of the videos at their West Coast Conference.
Secondly, I do not understand why you want an apology from C2C , when what they state is their desire “to effect reconciliation and reunion between Catholics and Protestants, particularly those of the Reformed tradition. We hope to accomplish this by removing obstacles founded upon misunderstandings as well as by engaging in charitable discussion of genuine disagreements, in a context of continual prayer for each other and for the unity of all God’s people. We believe that genuine unity comes through truth and never by forsaking or compromising the truth.
We encourage spirited charitable discussion in the blog.”
I think they do this. If someone’s comments express a wrong tone (uncharitable) they tell them to stop. I think they have had many charitable discussions of genuine disagreements. They have stated their purpose and they have also stated that they were Catholic. So why would you want an apology–they have stated this up front?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Davie 705,
Thank you for your question.
I have been in contact, via e-mail, with Bryan Cross. And I have explained to him privately my concerns. I wish to no longer make these matters a public affair, but rather, go about my concerns in the ways that are established in our Presbyterian church, the OPC. I have avenues by which I am allowed to act, and will go about things that way. But perhaps needless to say, if you have read my other comments, I have strong negative opinions about this blogging/commenting enterprise more broadly.
If you have further questions, I am willing to tell you via e-mail. (andrew(dot)d(dot)buckingham(at)gmail(dot)com).
Peace,
Andrew
davie said,
August 30, 2012 at 7:33 pm
jsm52 (comment 65)–all of the verses you quoted from Peter, Romans and Ephesians could be pictures of the RC view of infusion. RC do not believe one has to become a Jew or be under the legal system of the Jews to be saved. RC believe that it is Christ alone and grace alone. The works of the Spirit come from the grace that God gives. The righteousness the RC refers to always flow from grace given. Without the grace there would be no works, without the Spirit of God their would be no works. —So I am having a hard time seeing a distinction. RC do not believe in faith alone because it is clearly taught in scripture that it would not be true faith. It would seem that most Protestants would agree with Catholics that true faith has works. So why is there this constant drive on the Protestant part to divide the faith from works, from hope, from charity? Union in Christ would never mean a faith that does not have him as Lord. If works are a necessary part of true faith then why do the Protestants not see sanctification as part of God’s needful saving plan?
In your explanation of:” 9 For he that lacketh these things is blind, seeing only what is near, having forgotten the cleansing from his old sins. ” you have stated these are outward professors without the inward change. This is not seen from this text. It refers to the cleansing from his old sins. This would not be fake.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:11 pm
Andrew,
I wrote, “Well, my argument is that Peter has expressly said (echoing James) that our faith must be “added to” in order to result in our final salvation,” and you responded:
The way James answers your question is with an illustration, and if we come to terms with that illustration we will better understand his point about the relation of faith to works of love.
He says that just like a body without a spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. Now it would seem that for your reading of James to be correct, he would have needed to illustrate it like this: “It’s not so much a body plus a spirit, but whether you have the right kind of body. For the right kind of body has a spirit as an inevitable consequence. So likewise, the right kind of faith will produce works of necessity.” But of course, that’s not what he says. What he says, as his actual illustration demonstrates, is that it’s not about a certain quality of faith (saving), but about faith plus works. Faith alone is, by James’ definition, dead faith.
Reed Here said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Jason: I must admit that I find this comment from you,
Astonishingly unfair and almost pejoristic on your part. C’mon dude, you’re better than throwing out such a mischaracterization.
Reed Here said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Isaiah, no. 700: no hatred here for Bryan, and you are wrong to assess the conversation in such terms. Disagreement, even strong, does not mean hatred exists. Kindly reprove your language. Thanks!
Reed Here said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Davie, 706: I’ve not doubt that the C2C guys mean the quote you posted. Problem is that for many of us on this side, there can be no rapproachment between darkness and light. To offer maybe a kinder analogy, we do not think assimilation into the Borg of the Papacy a good thing to desire.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Reed,
How many times has Darryl just invited me to become Orthodox? Virtually every quote-unquote argument he has made over the past month has involved attacking the papacy and Bryan Cross, and then saying that EO should be an option if apostolic succession is that important.
And despite asking White to stop arguing against Rome and start arguing for Geneva, he refused to do it.
So it is not a mischaracterization to say that the case Protestants make for their ecclesiology consists largely of disproving the papacy. Heck, Bugay explicitly said as much a few comments up.
Reed Here said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:51 pm
I’ll not respond Jason; it seems it won’t do any good.
jsm52 said,
August 30, 2012 at 8:56 pm
davie @ 708,
Everything you discussed in the first part of your comment pertains to what is the on-going sanctification of the believer. When you refer to faith alone, I wonder what you mean. Paul explicitly writes that we are justified in Christ by faith apart from works (Rom. 3:28; 4:5). Yet, where there is a true and lively faith or trust in Christ alone for salvation (Eph. 2:8-9) there will be works of love that follow and accompany that faith. So as the Reformers would say, we are saved by grace through faith alone in Christ alone, but that true faith does not remain alone, but is adorned with and evidenced by good works, works prepared beforehand that we should walk in them (Eph. 2:10).
As for verse 9, Peter uses the word “cleansed” here, not forgiven. And for that reason I think it fair to read that pointing to baptism. Although I’m open to another take. One can be baptized which signifies the washing away of sins and yet, if not accompanied by true faith, then there is no forgiveness nor inward change. Thus the term “blind” which Jesus often used to describe those covenant Jews who held to an outward form of religion without the inward eyes of faith. Peter would then be issuing a stern warning to those he is addressing, to consider their ways, and yes, repent and believe.
Jack
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:08 pm
“So if you eliminate the papacy, you’re left with what’s left.”
That certainly doesn’t sound like a positive case for Protestant ecclesiology to me.
jsm52 said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Jason…
You press your point too hard. Many here are making the case for Protestantism. And DGH is poking holes in what he sees as weak lines of argument. Can I quote Paul?
Let it be.
;)
cheers,
Jack
Reed Here said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:16 pm
Jason: you know you are ignoring a whole host of conversation. Everything White says in this topic has been only negative, denial of the Papacy? Everything the Hart has said?
Let alone anyone else!
You are too well read to maintain such a position with integrity. Does your new truth need to be defended by such falsehood? Seriously Jason.
TurretinFan said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:19 pm
There was a man who decided to buy a particular house. All his friends told him it was trouble, because the house was build on something that claimed to be invulnerable to bad weather but was, in fact, sand.
The man complained when people pointed out that his reasons for buying his house were not really reasonable justifications. They even pointed out specific problems with the house’s foundation.
This just upset the man, who complained that the people were too busy attacking his house to make a positive case for a different house.
The seller of the house kept deflecting questions about the house’s foundation, claiming that all the criticisms were premised on things like, “sand isn’t a good foundation,” which just begged the question. You in the concrete paradigm are just begging the question, he would say.
This is one of those “choose your ending” stories. Either the man:
a) eventually realized that his friends cared about him and didn’t want to see him in an unsafe building; or
b) the man ignored the wisdom of his friends and build his house on what he thought was rock, but was in fact sand.
The one Rock is Christ, not Peter. He alone is the one head of the church, and the bishop of Rome is not the head of the church in any sense. Christ is the one King – he sits on his throne now, so we have no need for a throne in Rome. He is the one High Priest, so we have no need for a merely human bishop of bishops. He is the Revelation found in the NT (see Hebrews 1). He is Prophet, Priest, and King.
The apostles never believed that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church. The earliest Christian writings we have outside the NT likewise demonstrate no belief in Roman headship, quite the contrary. But folks like Bryan want you to believe it. Why should you? Because you think you agree with them about Justification? That’s a non sequitur.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 30, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Side note: “Protestant ecclesiology” – huh? Do you mean Calvary Chapel’s “Moses Model”? or Congregationalism? or Presbyterianism? or Episcopalianism? or Lutheranism? (in its own flavors)
The Reformed and Presbyterian churches have made a positive case for their ecclesiology – and the others are welcome to do so for theirs. But “Protestant” doesn’t describe a single ecclesiology any more than it describes a single soteriology.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 30, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Look, I’ll withdraw my statement since it’s off topic and I have a few more comments to respond to. Plus, it was directed at Darryl and then to Bugay. Sorry if I inadvertantly gave the impression that it applies to everyone.
Zrim said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:20 pm
JJS, I’m wondering how your approach to justification couldn’t be used to make the case for universalism. Certainly on the one hand there are texts about God loving the whole world, dying for the sins of the world, etc., while on the other texts which indicate that God has worked out salvation in a limited way only for his covenantal people. As you know, Reformed theology has taken all this into account and said that it is all without distinction and not all without exception. In this way, it seems feasible to say that Reformed theology has been able to fully affirm universalist sounding texts that someone could easily say could never have been written by a five-point Calvinist.
But I’m not sure I can see how your hermeneutic can do the same sort of justice to the Pauline texts already indexed in this thread. That is, how could someone with a FWTL theology have written Ephesians and Romans? Again, as you know, Reformed theology takes the texts you cite and the others and says that justification is by faith alone but not a faith that is alone. It fully affirms the necessity, or perhaps better the inevitability of works to salvation. But is there a way that the Catholic paradigm can take it all into account and not come off as dismissive of the Pauline texts? Maybe that’s forthcoming, but so far it doesn’t seem at all clear how your approach makes any sense whatsoever of what it means to say that God reckons righteousness apart from works or that it is by grace that we have been saved through faith and this not as a result of works so that no one may boast.
Andrew McCallum said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:23 pm
Jason (re:709),
Let me first say that I realize that you getting hit with lots of comments from lots of different directions. So please don’t feel the need to reply back if you would rather focus on something else here. I don’t want to you to feel like we are piling on too much for you to answer properly. I said a few comments ago to you that you had not answered me about the Gal. 5/6 issue, but that probably was not fair since you can only spend so much time on the issue and you certainly have presented your case about Gal. 5/6 to others besides me.
OK, so you say:
He says that just like a body without a spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. Now it would seem that for your reading of James to be correct, he would have needed to illustrate it like this: “It’s not so much a body plus a spirit, but whether you have the right kind of body.
As I read the introduction to that oft debated section of James (2:14-26) this seems to me to be exactly what James is saying, although I think I would substitute “right kind of body” with “real body” in your sentence above. In verse 14 James is challenging his listeners to consider whether they have real faith or some cheap worthless substitute. This is the context of the verses that follow. In v14 James states that he has true faith because his works demonstrate his faith to be real. We could say that James has “the right kind of” faith although since there is really only one true kind of faith, it’s better to say that James has “real” faith. So we are justified by works for just the reasons that James gives – our works demonstrate our faith to be real. To go beyond the reasons that James gives would seem to me to be very dangerous.
The whole thrust of the passage is to compare false so-called faith (where works are not present) with true/real faith where works accompany faith. I just cannot see that the passage as a whole is attempting to uncover whether God uses faith-apart-from-works or faith-plus-works to atone for our sins. So-called faith without works cannot possibly save, not because our our justification by faith is incomplete and works must make up the difference, but because faith without works is not the right kind of faith, or better said, not any kind of faith all. James is wisdom literature that is all about us focusing on whether there is evidence for our faith.
Brad B said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:27 pm
I read what Mark McCulley said @678, this morning prior to work, got home this evening and picked up the conversation til the recent one here by Jason. jsm52 commented “well said” I agree completely. Marks post spurred me to consider Job. The Roman church is like the friends of Job, seeing God through a retributive justice lens, missing the point of sovereignty, and grace, entirely by trying to square spiritual truths with worldly wisdom. It must feel good to the flesh to think that man can add to faith and improve upon it to perfection after literally paying my own way and calling it cooperation. I think Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar must’ve felt some similar satisfaction after offering consolation to Job.
A simple paradigm change views works as evidence of faith which can never construe the power of grace to “add to faith”, yielding rest–after all, His yoke is easy, His burden light. {Mat 11}
And Jason, looking from the outside, TF nailed a characterization of what has been displayed for all to see. I believe that there is a personal investment in the conclusions you are trying to prove such that you’re not really open to seeing legitimate objections. The recent dgh/bugay/reed comments bring clearly to light that you’re mind is made up to the exclusion of reasonable counter argument. Like you said in 511,
Here, it seems to me, you did what you complain that James White and Darryl did/are doing. Your process seems to have been to attack one paradigm and then go to another left standing–but is it really standing?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:34 pm
Friends,
Please consider the man, Jason Stellman, as you comment. Remember, Lane’s post is about the thought he put forth. These comments should be about the issues. I’m the least sophisticated, but I hear his heart in his comments. He doesn’t need me, squirting him water, and sending him back in the ring. But my goodness, if people who want to leave our church are treated thus, we need to be sure it’s the gospel we fight for, and not our pride.
Be patient, read the man’s words, let him speak,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:43 pm
I mean, it takes a lot to leave a church. I know. This whole thing seems like its way overblown. I still don’t really get all this blogging stuff. We all seem a bit addicted…anyway, Jason, best to you. May you come to be atgeater peace during ththis time of relative upheaval. I, for one, am a little shocked we are still talking about your resig.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:46 pm
I guess its like that mysterious figure, turretin the Puritan, said. These people care about you. Peace. -AB
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 30, 2012 at 11:57 pm
PS I mean, we are counting on you, mods. C2C had some choice words for you, in their recent comments. Don’t let this be a dogpile…
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:05 am
Jack,
The gracious nature of justification, for Paul, appears in its contrast to what he calls in the first passage you cite, “a righteousness of my own, based on the law.” Catholics do not believe that we are justified by a righteousness that comes from us, based on law. So there’s nothing in the Phil. 3 passage that we disagree with. We do disagree on imputation, of course, but thankfully the passage says nothing about that, but instead roots the righteousness that saves us in our union with Christ (“… and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own…”).
In the Romans passage, the same thing is happening. Unfortunately you stop quoting Paul at v. 28, but if you were to include the next verse you would see that his entire point there is that if we were justified by the works of the law, then God would be the God of the Jews only, and not of the Gentiles also. This is a non-sequitur if what Paul has in mind by ta erga tou nomou is simply any obedience to any kind of law. But if he has in mind the obedience of Jews to Torah, then his statement makes perfect sense.
It’s also interesting to note that Paul says that boasting is excluded by the “law of faith.” Another way to say this is “faith working through love.” Or, “the law of the Spirit has set me free from the law of sin.”
Again, boasting is certainly excluded, but it excluded because the law of Moses, which demanded without empowering, has been replaced by the law of Christ, the law of faith, or the law of the Spirit (which empowers for what it demands). And as I argued above, the boasting that Paul says the law of faith excludes is Jewish boasting in their ethnic distinctiveness.
And by the way, I called you on something pretty serious the other night, where I accused you of putting words into Paul’s mouth and completely overturning his evaluation of his works in Phil. 3. I would like to hear you respond to that when you have the time.
Turning to the II Peter passage I adduced, you say:
Yes, the “blind” can be understood in that way, but that would necessitate that we import a bunch of stuff into the passage that Peter never says (like that the people he is addressing never had faith in the first place, which he expressly says they do have). Plus, you’re making Peter say that the cleansing of their sins was “promised in baptism,” when in fact what he actually says is “you were cleansed from your former sins.”
So yeah, if we distort Peter’s words, or import a bunch of extra stuff into them, the passage “could be understood” in the way your theology needs it to be, but if we just let Peter speak for himself, he sounds like he’s simply saying that his baptized readers need to add the fruit of the Spirit to their faith in order to be saved.
I know I’m being a total stickler for the actual words the biblical writers use, but the idea that the fruitfulness Peter calls for is merely evidentiary of the faith that really saves his readers is not what he says. He says that they must supplement their faith with spiritual fruit, for “in this way” they will receive their eternal inheritance.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:30 am
Re Brad B #724 …
“The Roman church is like the friends of Job, seeing God through a retributive justice lens, missing the point of sovereignty, and grace, entirely by trying to square spiritual truths with worldly wisdom.”
Yes, yes — the Reformation was a “revolt” or a “counter-revolution” to “wean” the Church away from “Hellenisation” of Christian theology in the Latin Church — doing theology ad modum Aristotelis.
“Good works make a good man”. Justification by faith alone shatters such scheme and turn the world’s religious/ moral system and worldview – and philosophy – upside down.
Christopher Lake said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:32 am
Andrew B.,
As a former committed and convinced “Reformed Baptist,” and a Catholic convert/revert, I want to thank you for your appeal for Jason Stellman to be truly heard here, even as most people here may (probably will) continue to disagree with him, including yourself (and I write that with no rancor whatsoever).
When I was in a period of serious study and discernment as to whether or not to continue as a Protestant Christian, I was very thankful for the Protestant friends in my life who seemed to truly *hear* my questions and concerns– and I truly tried, as best as I possibly could, to take *their* questions and concerns seriously in kind, because, through the entire process, I was genuinely more concerned about God’s truth than about about any particular theological paradigm.
I have seemingly lost most of my Protestant friends now, and, after two years, I am still grieved about that. I would rather them challenge me to my face and keep me in dialogue, if they truly fear or believe that I have apostasized, rather than go (mostly) silent on me– but I do understand that we all have our own lives and responsibilities, and that, at some point, life has to go on.
It does hurt that most of them (with a few significant exceptions) never even really attempted to dialogue with me at all– especially given that I know that so many of them are taught, as I was, as a Reformed Baptist, that “consistent Catholics are not Christians”– but I do not, and cannot, judge their hearts, regarding to their silence toward me. I still love them and would be happy for any contact from them at all, even contact to engage me in very challenging conversation as to how and why I (in their view) “apostatized.” In the end though, that is their choice.
Thank you again for your conduct here, even as you understandably continue to maintain and defend your Reformed doctrinal convictions. As a Catholic, I am thankful.
There are more than a few Protestant sites (both Reformed and Arminian) which have a mission of dialogue with/evangelism toward Catholics, in the interest of leading them away from the Church. Given my Protestant background, I know, as well as I can know, that the operators of these sites, subjectively have the very best of intentions. Objectively, of course, as a Catholic, I do believe that these non-Catholic evangelists are wrong– but, at least in most cases, I do not doubt their sincerity, as Christians, wanting to lead Catholics to the fullness of God’s saving Truth in Christ crucified and resurrected (a truth which these Protestant evangelists believe that Catholics lack or misunderstand). That is actually the very same aim of CTC, though I can understand that most here will vehemently disagree with that statement. I have been there too– also vehemently, in those years when I was a Calvinist.
Christopher Lake said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:38 am
Sorry for the typos above… it’s too late here for me to be typing this much… Good night and God bless, including to those who do not count me (a “consistent Catholic”) as a brother in Christ! Again, I understand– I’ve been there!
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:38 am
The problem is not that you’re being a stickler – the problem is exactly the opposite: you’re not reading carefully.
2 Peter 1:5-8
And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
It does not say that in this way they will receive their eternal inheritance. It says that in this way they will not be barren or unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
You’re jumping down to verse 11 for the reference to something eternal. And there it does not say barely that they will receive their eternal inheritance. Instead it says:
“For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.”
Even assuming that you are right to bundle 5-8 into the “for so …” that explains the “abundantly” not simply the entrance.
So, no – your being a stickler is not the problem.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:40 am
Jeff,
I think you’re looking at the whole thing through a Calvinistic paradigm, which is causing you to ask these questions about how to reconcile saving blessings supposedly given to finally unsaved people. But look at what Peter explicitly says of his readers: (1) they have obtained a faith equal to that of [presumably] the apostles; (2) they by God’s power have been granted all things pertaining to life and godliness; (3) they have been called to God’s glory and excellence; (4) they have been cleansed of their former sins.
Now for the bad news. Of the very same people, with no differentiation, he says: (1) their faith (which they actually have) must be supplemented with spiritual fruit; (2) if they fail to exhibit this fruit they are blind; (3) if they fail to exhibit this fruit, they will not be richly provided an entrance into the kingdom (this last one is not explicit but implicit).
So it would seem to me that the most natural reading of the passage, based on what Peter actually says, is that the same descriptors are being used to describe the same group of people. The only thing that makes it hard is when you foist a paradigm on the passage that demands that no one can have real faith unless he is saved. But of course, James explicitly teaches that one can have faith, but if he has not works of love as well, he will not be justified (sounds a bit like, “supplement your faith with love” and “faith working through love,” innit?)
Again, only if one’s theological presuppositions disallow Peter from meaning what he actually says.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:51 am
Andrew Mc 723,
For me, it was 2 pet 2:10, calling and election sure. Well put.
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:09 am
And “abundantly” becomes important when we compare Peter’s discussion with Paul’s:
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man’s work of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.
You don’t want to escape from this life like Lot from Sodom, right? You’d prefer a grand entrance.
-TurretinFan
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:12 am
Andrew McC,
I wrote, “James says that just like a body without a spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. Now it would seem that for your reading of James to be correct, he would have needed to illustrate it like this: “It’s not so much a body plus a spirit, but whether you have the right kind of body.” And you responded:
So you think a “real body” is only real if it has a spirit animating it? Have you ever been to an open-casket funeral? Wasn’t that a body in there? Sure, it was a dead one, but that’s James’s whole point: just like a body alone without a spirit is dead, so faith alone without works is dead. For James, “faith alone,” without works, is synonymous with dead faith, just like a body alone, without a spirit, is synonymous with a dead body. The only reason this is hard is that your paradigm won’t allow James to mean what he actually says.
No he’s not. Here’s v. 14: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?” (in the Greek, it just reads “can [the] faith save him,” and not “can that [kind of] faith save him”). So all James is asking is whether faith can save a man who has no works, the answer to which is no.
(And note that the context is whether that man can be saved, and not merely whether his salvation is being demonstrated before men.)
No he doesn’t, your paradigm does. James says that a man who has faith without works is not saved. There’s nothing in there about “true faith demonstrating” anything.
We could say anything we want, including that “it’s better to say that James has real faith.” But James himself says no such thing. What he says is that the man who wants to be saved must have faith plus works, just like a body that wants to move around must also have a spirit.
What you’ve been doing here is changing what James says, and then warning others not to “go beyond” him. I agree it’s dangerous, but not for me!
No, the whole thrust of the passage is to compare “faith alone” with faith that is “active along with one’s works” (or, “faith working through love”). If you disagree, then feel free to show me where James says anything about “true” faith versus “false” faith. You’re reading into the passage what’s not there.
He doesn’t—Jesus’ blood atones for our sins. What James is discussing is whether God uses faith-apart-from-works or faith-plus-works to justify us.
I know that is what your paradigm demands James to be saying, but unfortunately, James didn’t say those things because James didn’t hold to your paradigm.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:36 am
TF,
Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify the progression and fill it in a bit.
Peter says to supplement faith with spiritual fruit (vv. 5-7). He then says that if we do, we will not be unfruitful (v. 8). He then says that whoever lacks the fruit of the Spirit is blind (v. 9). He then says that we must be zealous to confirm our calling and election, for if we do, we will never fall, so there will be richly provided an entrance into the eternal kingdom (vv. 10-11).
So our entrance into the kingdom is tied to our confirming our calling and election. And how do we do that? By supplementing our faith with spiritual fruit. The progression is pretty obvious.
I addressed with Jeff this issue already (don’t know the #, but it was last night I think). Peter’s language in chs. 1-2 does not allow for his warning to be merely about being paltrily saved rather than richly saved. He wraps up his thought in 2:9 where he talks about “keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of judgment.” It’s a much more serious progression of warnings than “Be careful that you don’t fail to earn a really bejeweled crown when you get to heaven.”
I do grant (as you have shown) that Paul talked about degrees of reward in glory, but simply citing the passage from I Cor. 3 doesn’t mean that Peter was addressing the same issue.
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2012 at 2:22 am
But Peter’s language does allow for his warning to be merely about being paltrily saved rather than richly saved. First, the word “abundantly” becomes redundant under other interpretations. Second, the “wicked under punishment” reference is one where there is a clear distinction from the godly.
Moreover, look at the immediately preceding example of Lot. There’s someone whose greed led him to Sodom, from whence he escaped by the skin of his teeth, losing his wife and the marriage prospects for his daughters, after offering to prostitute those same girls the night before.
If you want an example of “barely saved” or “saved as by fire,” what better example could one pick than Lot who just barely escaped!
Yet Lot is called “just.”
Returning to the point above, the evil people of Chapter 2 are contrasted with those of a “pure mind,” to whom the epistle is addressed (see the start of chapter 3).
So, contrary to your assertion, the language of Peter’s warnings does actually suggest that his point is an encouragement to them to grow in grace ‘(see the conclusion) and maturity, not one of suggesting that they can separate themselves from the union they have with Christ by faith.
-TurretinFan
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 4:02 am
Last thing, folks:
I said I had a mainline, ‘modern-leaning’ guy debating the doctrine of scripture with me, for years. He also took issue with sub. atonement, using, “the mind of Jesus”, by William Barclay. For anyone interested, I can share
the quote from that book.
For now though, here’s what I digged up on Barclay, as I wrestled, back then:
If you were to read some of Barclay’s writings you would be convinced that he believed in the Savior’s deity. For example, in his discussion of John 1:1, the famous theologian said that Jesus was “of the very same character and quality and essence and being as God.” But when two acquaintances of this writer visited with Barclay at his home in Glasgow, in the spring of 1970, the distinguished professor strongly denied that he believed that Jesus was divine, and he insisted he never had endorsed that idea. He claimed that the Lord himself believed that he was divine, as did others, but personally, he did not. When Paul was cited as evidence to the contrary, the professor snapped: “I don’t care what Paul said.””
The point is, we will continue to debate what Paul meant, or didn’t, mean. Jason Stellman’s formulations, all over my head, mind you, are nothing new. If he rejects sola fide, well OK, fine. Its just for some of us, we can’t so that, because to us, that’s core to Christianity, just like sub. atonement is.
My point is, this all sounds like Machen’s fight against modernism and liberalism. I really don’t know. But at the end of the day, we who hold to things must not give in. Some will leave our churches over doctrine,we should actually expect this. Per Romans 14, it is God that allows us to stand. I really think all this discussion over opinions , on blog, may harm people’s faith. People reading these things, that you never know, will read. Please be careful what you post. Especially with things like what is said here. I likely will havJaJason’s public words here analyzed by some of my leadership, and if action is needed, we will determine that, within our church. Maybe a committee…
Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 4:06 am
barclay source:
hhttp//www.christiancourier.com/articles/681-the-enigmatic-william-barclay?full_site=1
Lane,
Might it be time for a new topic?
Looking forward to my morning run, trying a new route in few hours,
Andrew
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 4:56 am
Jason says on #735 in response to Andrew McCallum:
“I know that is what your paradigm demands James to be saying, but unfortunately, James didn’t say those things because James didn’t hold to your paradigm.”
It is interesting that James 2 begins with the statement “My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.” I do not know what the original Greek is but the NKJV translates verse 1 as: “My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality.”
So based on the NKJV, the word “respect” could probably mean “in relation to” rather than “esteeming, deferring, honouring, etc.” although James would go on immediately to talk about the latter. Then again, it encompass both meanings. From verse 1, it seems that James is being blunt here which would be consistent in his chiding the Christians to whom he writes about their “dead faith.” IOW, James was simply saying to the Christians concerned that they do not have the faith of Our Lord Jesus Christ, at least when it comes to showing respect to persons. However, the text does *not* imply “living faith” as opposed to “dead faith” but simply – and unequivocally – *no* faith (i.e. the faith of Our Lord) at all. To put in modern colloquailism: “You either have it or you don’t.”
That James was speaking in “absolute terms” could be paralleled or expressed also in his speaking about the Law (verse 8-11). One either fulfil the Law as intended as in “Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” OR “For whosoever shall keep the whole law” (as demanded) “and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.” This would be in keeping with the absolute or total situation of the Law and Gospel (distinction).
James goes on to say: “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of *liberty*. For *he* shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.” This is an extremely difficult passage. Thus far, James has been preaching *against* his audience (not mincing any words). James is probably reminding his audience that though judged by the Law (preceding verses), and under the Law, yet they are also judged by “the law of liberty/ freedom” which in James 1 is equated with the Word of truth, thus implying that truth is two-fold.
To reiterate, one truth judges by what the Law “demands”; the other truth judges by what the Law “intends.” This is paralleled by two different attitudes towards the Law that James was describing. The use of the word “law” to connect with the word “liberty” was probably intended by James to convey a strong impression on his hearers/ audience, i.e. judgment. IOW, the Gospel can and do sound as judgment to those who lack faith. Liberty/ freedom, therefore, would sound as libertinism to the antinomians and legalists (who we Protestants know are both of the same cloth and really two different names for the same spirit).
Not only was James preaching against his audience up until now, but (precisely) he was talking about their relationship coram Deo (in the sight of God). Verse 13, therefore, probably stands for continuity with the preceding passages: “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.” To judge without mercy probably echoes the Beautitudes in Matthew 5:7 -“Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.” So “he” would refer to God, rather than the human (which would consistent with the coram mundo perspective). That mercy triumphs over judgment is what the Gospel is … that is the judgment of the Law is not the final word, the Gospel is. Both Law and Gospel are total. The Law is unmerciful, and yet for the Christian, it is not the final word.
The “real problematic” verses are the ones that follows after this —
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”
Just a while ago, James was preaching against his audience for the lack of the faith of Our Lord (“have *not* …) . Now he implicitly acknowledges that his audience may have faith but that that faith is insufficient (“can faith save him?”). Has James like Paul contradicted himself?
“If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
The above passages talks about the Christian’s relationship with their fellow human beings. IOW, the Christian coram mundo (in the sight of the world). Whereas James was preaching coram Deo, now he is preaching coram mundo/ hominibus.
This verse should allay any doubts as to whether James is talking about the Christian coram Deo *or* coram mundo …
“Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.”\
A man may say … to whom … Thou hast faith and I have works — is it a divine-human exchange/ dialogue or human-human exchange/dialogue here …
Shew me … by whom? Thy faith without thy works (that is the “thy” is the Christian to whom James is addressing) and I will shew thee my faith by my works (James or other Christian).
Justification before God or the human??
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:07 am
Again let me try and give a Protestant take on James (trying to complete the so-called interpretation on James 2) …
“But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
Seems like James is not done with preaching against his audience (many of whom I understand were Jewish converts). Now this passage here as quoted above gives all indication of justification by faith and works coram Deo. And yet in the middle of it all, the following verse stands out: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” This one verse (verse 23) is consistent with sola fide (Protestant paradigm). But how does one “square” this verse with the rest?
I could do no better than to follow my Reformed brethren here and speak about the evidentiary nature of faith. If good works show that one has faith (living faith) then by good and necessary consequence, good work proceeds or spring from a lively faith (neither vice-versa nor co-existing). It is impossible to have living faith and not have good works, therefore. No faith (or dead faith), no good works. This does not square with the Roman paradigm whereby it is possible for the Christian to be infused with the theological virtues of faith, hope and love and yet be devoid of good works – at least theoretically speaking since whilst faith is freely given by operative grace and freely received by co-operative grace, good works is dependent on the exercise of habitual grace and co-operation with actual grace. Instead James is saying (here) faith without works IS dead — IOW *no* faith in the first place.
“Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
Is James contradicting himself — when he said that faith is either living or dead as evidenced by good works? This verse is immediately followed by “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” where good works is not mentioned at all but only faith. Thus, it would be highly probable to safely assume that the former verse speaks of faith coram mundo (where the distinction – within the self-same context is not absolute, i.e. living/ dead and imperfect) and the latter refers to faith coram Deo where *imputation* of righteousness by God is involved. Or the implication would be unpalatable to even the Roman Catholic paradigm, namely that God imputes an imperfect righteousness corresponding to an imperfect faith which requires complementation and supplementation by good works.
dgh said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:18 am
Jason, in case you didn’t notice, the arguments against Cross’ assertion of papal infallibility and primacy are not about ecclesiology but about a quest for illegitimate certainty. I’m still trying to recover feeling in my jaw after the initial thought that you were persuaded by Cross.
And the reason for the argument about Eastern Orthodoxy, is to suggest the move to Rome is not as air-tight as Cross alleges. If CTC is going to fault Protestants for our opinions, it is a kind of defense to argue that CTC is no less guilty of having an opinion. You have remarked several times about how juvenile and uninformed objections here are to Rome. Maybe it’s because CTC’s case for Rome is immature (in lacking the last 50 years of RC developments, like Vatican 2 and its crisis of authority) and seemingly unaware of the wider Christian world.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 8:29 am
Well said, dgh. What really get’s me about all this blogging and stuff, and as regards Bryan Cross, is just how much pride people get out of it. How on earth can Bryan speak for the “Roman Catholic Position” , for example, on justification. When his pope starts updating twitter, wake me up. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 8:32 am
PS I do really want to see this blog community here move past the issues around Mr. Stellman’s resignation. People should be very very alarmed, for example, with all the modern theologians (and no less, the man who denies sub. atonement, Barclay!) that me, an ordained deacon, has been citing. There’s lots of work to do!
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 8:34 am
I shouldn’t be reading Barclay!!!! Nor Tillich, Bultmann, nor Barth. Hopefully, seasoned presbyterians, you can see the problems perhaps with all this blogging stuff…Whatever, it’s just a blog. Or is it? ;-)
out running,
andrew
stuart said,
August 31, 2012 at 9:06 am
Jason,
I’ve been reading along with this discussion without commenting . . . . mainly because my time has been limited.
I appreciate the chance to wrestle with the biblical texts you’ve provided.
When it comes to James’ analogy of body without spirit showing us what faith without works is like, I have a few concerns with your take.
1) Whatever our paradigm, analogies shouldn’t be pressed too far. All analogies break down somewhere. The point of the analogy is what should be stressed, and it seems that in context James’ point is to show that simply claiming faith is not good enough . . . 2:14 “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him?”.
2) Is James saying, “Just like a dead body must have a spirit added to it to be alive, we must add works to our faith in order to be justified”, or is he saying “just like you cannot separate the spirit from the body and still have a living body, so too you cannot separate faith and works and still have a living faith”? It seems to me the distinction between those two possibilities makes a huge difference in the way we understand James’ point.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 9:42 am
I really like how the animus imponentis conference in the Presbytery of Northern California and Nevada explained Eclessiology. Jason, if you want that link again, let me know and I will put into a combox or e-mail you. I don’t mean to question you to harshly, but you have already left the reformed church. So this is all quite pointless, really. Or sadomasichist..
The RCC, Episcopals, Baptist, Eastern Orthodox, even, yes, Presbyterians, do not have a “lock on things.” Instead, the church truly is the Bride of Christ, in all it’s diversity.
Presbyterians are not going over the Roman Catholic blogs, stirring up trouble. Presbyterians who are former Roman Catholics, do not go back to their old blogs, and post comments, to push their own agenda.
The Holy Spirit moves where He will. No earthly church can claim sole right to the Holy Spirit. It’s high time the Roman Catholich Church come clean.
Try to stand outside all of this, and look at it objectively. Truly, the Roman catholics come over to this blog, to try to “stump the chump.” It’s not going the other way.
Luther was not infallible, but he righted the ship. Roman Catholics will never accept Luther and Calvin. Just like we will never accept their Pope as leader.
We really need to find new hobbies, people,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 10:20 am
No skin off my back, Mr. Lake.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:44 am
I would like everyone to know, that yes, Andrew Buckingham did just claim comment 750…all for himself. The balloons are falling down around me, as we speak…
Oh, the only other thought I had, was that anyone who is not of the reformed persuation (and this especially includes characters such as Andrew Preslar, Byran Cross, and Jason Stellman), need to make it very very very clear anytime they post here, on the blog, of a PCA minister, what their intentions are. To anyone reading this comment. I would encourage any comments from these three indivduals (and maybe someone named Nick, as well, he kinda gives me the heebie jeebies) should simply not be read. I’ve shared e-mails with people who know what is going on here. We are actually using the word, “wolf” for these people. As reformed Christians, we love these Roman Catholic brothers. But we believe their intentions are not necessarily for the good of those who may read. So with that, please take anything these four indivdiauls say with a whole bucket of salt. Oh, and why are you reading comments of a theological blog? Can you think of just one thing you might rather do with your time?
Sorry, folks, but I had to fire a parting shot. I love you guys. But man, church leadership needs to know about this. I encourage all presbyterians to explain to their sessions exactly what is being done here in theological blogs. Do not hold back. Tell them also what you are doing. We need to get presbyteries aware and involved in what is going on here. I perceive utter madness out here. And we are presbyterians. THis is not the kind of think that Luther and Calvin fought for. This is what they fought against. I am the worst offender, here, but you fellows reading and comments, you really know better.
Shots out the tailpipe,
Andrew
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:46 am
ick! i called them brothers! i didn’t mean that…
* we love our roman catholic human beings…
who knows, maybe we can get some of them to swim the tiber…but THAT’s NOT a call for anyone here to go post on called to communion. Let them enjoy their comments and blogs. I say read their words, with a bottle of Jack at the helm. Trust me, if you head over to C2C, you are going to need a drink…
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:19 pm
If I may for “good measure” — the Reformation ain’t over *yet* …
If I may add here re James — “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment.”
How is James’ statement here – which seems to be at variance with his trenchant remarks about his audience earlier on and afterwards – compatible with the Roman paradigm of justification by infused faith and Spirit-wrought works? Yeah James (like Paul) are typical Jewish schizophrenic converts …
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:24 pm
The mysterious and enigmatic phrase “the law of liberty” could well be referring – as I’m speculating here – to either Jesus Christ Himself Who is both the perfect embodiment/ enfleshment of Law and Gospel, so to speak, or to the Law in its 3rd use — as Guide for our sanctification. Indeed this would be compatible with good works flowing out of faith as part of sanctification. For some Lutherans, the 3rd use would be the “2nd use of the Gospel.” IOW, the use of the Law is applies to the Christian/ regenerate post-Gospel, not for justification but sanctification.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:28 pm
After all, the perfect law of liberty whilst equated with the Word of truth is not reducible to it but follows after regeneration (“begat” by “hearing”) in James 1.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:44 pm
“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?”
No, faith as act or performance cannot save anymore than faith and works combined. The question “can faith save him” is meant to dispel the notion that the Christian is saved by personal confession (of faith)? IOW, wrong notion of faith itself (which of course also results in a wrong understanding of the relationship between faith and good works). By extension, James seems to be dealing with a group of Christians (who as Jewish converts) in all probability conceived faith as having the same logical status as good works — precisely as found in the Roman paradigm.
Recall that James told his audience to judge themselves according to the “law of liberty” which implied a different understanding of the use of the Law in the old religion — self-love as the motif rather than love for the nieghbour. So, to shatter such thinking, James add “For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath shewed no mercy; and mercy rejoiceth against judgment” – the totality thereof which leaves no room for faith as a condition albeit in place of good works. IOW, James could be dealing with the forerunners of the “classical Arminians.”
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:46 pm
“Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.”
How is this verse compatible with the Roman paradigm of infused grace where not only faith, but hope and love are also present as theological virtues?
jsm52 said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:50 pm
Jason @ 608,
Ok Jason. You have written quite boldly of my ignorance, and even blatant manipulation of Paul’s words. And yet, I would suggest that you may be assuming certain things in this passage that are far from given.
You write that the things Paul repudiates are those that he considered “gain” only before his conversion and thus don’t apply to his present life as a Christian. Yet nowhere does Paul indicate that his words are to be taken as pertaining to his pre-conversion years, though he does reference those years. His point and application, I think, is much broader. Verses 3 and 4 set this up:
Paul is making an appeal to the Philippians to not put confidence in the flesh, which he then states that he “has”, not had, more of a mind to than anyone else. He lists his many fleshly attributes that he could take confidence in as an example (the whole purpose of this section) to the believers. To wit, if even Paul doesn’t view any merit in his attributes, certainly the Philippians should not. Paul says he “counted” them loss, which does refer to the past (yes, probably a conversion reference), but then comes back to the present tense and exclaims,
This is the ongoing mindset of Paul as he lives for Christ. For the temptation is always to, in some manner, trust in ourselves – our merit in our intelligence, our good intentions, or our acts of service to God and others. Rather Paul’s focus and direction regarding righteousness was, initially and continually (present tense), to be
And Paul confirms that this is about the present pursuit of Christ when he writes,
Indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit in conforming us to image of Christ is an on-going work, one which does include our good works and faith. Yet that is a work of God’s grace in us, not to secure our justification, but to conform us to the moral image of Christ (a work begun in this life and one that will be completed at the resurrection when we see Him). For Paul writes that the righteousness he has from God is on the basis of faith, apart from anything in himself. Upon that firm ground of righteousness which comes by faith in Christ Jesus and his finished work, Paul, and yes we, press on to lay hold of of that end for which he and we were taken possession of by Christ Jesus.
And where in my comments do I claim that “Paul… repudiates the fruit the Spirit wrought in him”? I don’t at all. In fact, I affirm that there are good works (i.e. Spirit wrought). What I repudiate is that those good works, though they glorify God and witness to a true and lively faith, in any way contribute to our justification, an important distinction.
So Jason, I understand you now have a different template than mine and thus we disagree as to how to approach this passage. But I think this view which I’ve outlined, more or less the Reformed view, is far from being a distortion of Paul’s words.
Jack
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:55 pm
“Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?”
To add, justification by faith alone (imputed righteousness alone) is the flip-side of vocation by faith and good works — the two are inextricably linked, inter-locked, inter-twined, etc.
This is implied in the preceding verses where James pushed home the point: “Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?”
Seest thou …? *Seest* … *thou* refers unequivocally to the human (whether general category or context-specific individual) — the context is coram mundo …
And the following verse begins with … ***And*** not therefore, or so … but “and” which preposition implies a different construction of meaning … two different contexts — coram Deo & coram mundo held together with the preposition *and* …
Ron said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Well, my argument is that Peter has expressly said (echoing James) that our faith must be “added to” in order to result in our final salvation.
Jason,
As I think you must know, Reformed thought maintains that if one is justified, then he will add good works; which is to say that future good works are a necessary condition for anyone in a state of justification. I think Rome would agree. Protestants also maintain that if one adds good works, then he is justified, making justification a necessary condition for good works. Neither proposition speaks to the question of whether good works are a cause for one’s justification. In other words, that it is necessary to add good works to faith in order to obtain final salvation does not imply that good works cause or are the grounds for final salvation. It only implies that good works must accompany final salvation. The causal question must be answered elsewhere.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 12:57 pm
And then the dialectic shifts again … schizophrenic bi-polar James goes on about justification by faith and good works … scripture is both divine and human … hence the polemical concerns of specific “authors” are integral to the divine revelation …
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Scripture — divine & human, God-Man — divine & human, justification and vocation: absolute distinction & absolute inseparability
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:09 pm
If I may add — two types of righteousness which constitute the “identity” of the Christian … distinct but inseparable …
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Hey Stuart,
I agree that analogies shouldn’t be pressed too far. For example, I remember a popular author friend of mine years ago who used to say, “In the parable of the wheat and tares, we read that ‘while men slept’ an enemy sowed the tares. The ‘men’ are the leaders of the church who’ve fallen asleep on the job.” I think we’d both agree that this is over-interpreting the parable and trying to find significance or meaning in every single detail.
I agree that “simply claiming faith is not enough,” but I also think that you are wrong to say that this is James’s point. His contrast is not between a person who has faith, and a person who claims to have it but doesn’t. His contrast is between a person who has faith alone, and a person who has faith and works.
The fact that James appeals to Abraham is telling: it wasn’t that Abraham only claimed to have faith until he sacrificed Isaac, at which point he actually did have faith. On the contrary, Abraham had faith already, but when he offered Isaac God said, “Now I know that you love me,” and then swore his oath to Abraham for the first time.
In James’ words, “Abraham’s faith was active along with his works,” which is exactly what Paul means when he says that justification comes not from circumcision, but “faith working through love,” and what Peter means when he says that we must “supplement our faith with love,” and what Paul meant when he said, “If I have all faith but have not love, it profits me nothing.”
So I don’t think I am reading too much into James’ illustration about the body and the spirit, I think some here are not doing it justice at all. In my reading, James’ illustration, simply as given, perfectly demonstrates the theological point I think he is making. On the Protestant reading, however, James illustration as given utterly fails to illustrate the point they think he is making. So it’s not about over-interpreting the illustration, but whether James succeeded in illustrating his point at all.
Why don’t we just let James speak for himself: “For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.” I think both of your options are fine, provided you follow James far enough to admit that what James calls “dead faith” is the equivalent of what he calls a “dead body.” If a dead body is a body alone devoid of a spirit, then dead faith is faith alone devoid of works.
jsm52 said,
August 31, 2012 at 1:24 pm
RCC Catechism:
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ.
2025 … Merit is to be ascribed in the first place to the grace of God, and secondly to man’s collaboration.
2027 … we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life…
Comment @
271 Amen to it being solely due to the merit of Jesus’ death and resurrection that we can be saved.
and then…
289 The biblical position is that Jesus’ merit is the basis for my salvation, and that the works he produces in me are graciously contributory.
Me: so, something of our works contributes to the merit of our salvation? Yet our salvation is due solely to the merit of Jesus’ death and resurrection, i.e. His works?
I know I have been diagnosed by those of CtC as simply not understanding Roman Catholic theology, but the above doesn’t add up to this reader.
Ephesians 2:8-10
For ye are saved by grace, through faith; and this not of yourselves; it is God’s gift: not on the principle of works, that no one might boast. For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God has before prepared that we should walk in them.
Verse 10 speaks to purpose for which we are saved, not to a partial or contributory cause of our salvation. As Paul says, salvation is a gift of God’s grace, through faith, not according to any works, therefore no one should ascribe any “merit” (boast) to their person or any work they do.
I’m not looking to convince anyone who disagrees. But herein lies the huge chasm between Rome and Reformed. And this is the issue that was (and is) at the center of the Reformation and our argument.
Jack
Jeff Cagle said,
August 31, 2012 at 2:20 pm
Dennis (#705): Thanks.
My understanding of 2 Peter is he’s talking to baptized people. v 9 makes that fairly clear when he reminds them that the shortsighted are “forgetful of their past sins” which would have occurred at their baptism.
Not sure how baptism got in there, but I definitely agree with you that he’s saying that the shortsighted have forgotten their past cleansing.
And, I fully agree with your 1 – 6.
So we’re not too far apart here.
The next question, though, is “How did these blind people get this way?”, and then “What will become of them?”
That’s where Protestants and Catholics diverge.
Jeff Cagle said,
August 31, 2012 at 2:41 pm
JJS (#734): I think you’re looking at the whole thing through a Calvinistic paradigm, which is causing you to ask these questions about how to reconcile saving blessings supposedly given to finally unsaved people.
I don’t mind that you think that I have X or Y paradigm, but calling “paradigm” or “presupposition” is actually way too easy.
Because it is reasonable to ask how we reconcile saving blessings supposedly given to finally unsaved people, right? Augustine wrestles with this.
Playing the “paradigm” card allows one to brush the questions or arguments aside with meta-argument. Let’s agree not to do that, can we?
Again, I don’t mind if you drill down to the details and show that my argument rests on this or that ground, a genuine presupposition.
I just don’t want us to be telling each other “that’s your presuppositions talking.” I soured on that in the 90s.
—
JJS: So it would seem to me that the most natural reading of the passage, based on what Peter actually says, is that the same descriptors are being used to describe the same group of people.
Alright, let’s see how far we can agree. Some theses:
(1) vv. 5 – 8 are a genuine command, one that could be contingently obeyed or disobeyed.
(2) v. 9 describes the outcome for those who disobey this command.
(3) Those who obey the command will receive a rich welcome into the kingdom.
(4) The fate of the “blind” is not explicitly stated.
(5) There are at least three hypothetical (meaning, paradigm-free) possibilities for “the blind”:
(5a) The blind might die in their state and fail to enter heaven.
(5b) The blind might die in their state and receive a 1 Cor 3 welcome into heaven.
(5c) The blind might, on account of God’s election, be roused from their state by the working of God’s spirit, and hence lose their blindness.
How are we doing?
Dennis said,
August 31, 2012 at 3:01 pm
Jeff,
Thanks. I am always interested in how others read the Bible. I’m genuinely not interested in trying to convert people. My only interest would be trying to turn people to Christ.
I think I put Baptism in there because “past cleansing” would refer to the cleansing of sins that would have happened in Baptism.
“How did these blind people get this way?”
I think Peter gives us the answer in v.4:
“after escaping from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire.”
These “blind” people did not escape from the corruption in the world and submitted to “evil desire.” Because of this, their faith was not supplemented with virtue which ultimately meant that they lacked love. So, they had faith but the faith wasn’t enough as they still succumbed to worldly pleasures. (Something I am unfortunately all too familiar with).
“What will become of them?”
Peter tells us in v.8. Those who have faithlove, will be fruitful. And those who don’t will be “Idle and unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.” This is implied but very obvious in the text. Peter continues in verse 10 telling us that “in doing so, we will never stumble” so, those who are blind, “stumble” and the eternal kingdom will be richly provided.
How would you as a Protestant answer these questions?
Dennis said,
August 31, 2012 at 3:05 pm
Sorry…the last sentence should be “stumble” and the eternal kingdom will NOT be richly provided.
stuart said,
August 31, 2012 at 4:07 pm
Thanks for your reply, Jason.
Glad we agree on how analogies shouldn’t be pushed too far.
Also, I appreciate the challenge on what I presented as the point of the James passage. I think you are right that James’ point is not merely “simply claiming faith is not enough.” I apologize for not making my point clearer.
My reading of James is that he is expounding further on what he has already said in 1:22ff. Hearing, and in some sense agreeing, with the truth is not the same thing as having saving faith.
So if a man says, “I have (saving) faith” but there are no deeds, that “faith” is not saving faith. It is a “dead” faith.
Which is one of the reasons James says “show me!” in this passage. How can you demonstrate saving faith without showing it with deeds?
After all, even the demons “believe” and they show their “faith” by trembling at the truth of the one God.
As for the analogy itself, I find that I can’t argue with what Luke Timothy Johnson (a RC himself if I’m not mistaken) says in his commentary on James . . . “the point is not that deeds give life, but that they express life, ‘demonstrate’ that life is present. The obvious assumption is that whatever is living also acts.”
isaiah. said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:44 pm
Reed (711):
Thanks for the response. I’ll grant that “hatred” is too strong a word. Having followed this thread from nearly the beginning, I’ve seen lots of very snarky comments and unprovoked accusations and felt that I should come to Bryan’s defense. I will now let the matter stand.
Thank you for your work here at Green Baggins and for fielding/hosting this discussion.
Peace,
ih.
isaiah. said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Andrew B (751 & 752):
Let the record stand!
Well, we are closer to being your “brothers” than “wolves”, wouldn’t you say? If I was once your brother by being Protestant, what does that make me now? Indeed, I have not “left the Christian family”, I’ve merely changed my theology, philosophy and ecclesiology.
As it happens, I’ve heard many Catholics charitably refer to Protestants as their “brothers and sisters” (albeit, separated brethren). Why can’t Protestants do the same for Catholics?
In Christ (the same Christ, who is the Savior of us all!),
ih.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 6:55 pm
I retract “wolf.”
C2C represents a very “evangelical” organization?
Wink, thumbs up?
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 7:10 pm
Final thought – It’s an interesting word, “brother.” Nice to know, perhaps, that the One whom we place our trust in, gave us a very explicit definition, of who His brother, sister, mother is. Peace.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 7:14 pm
So don’t ask me that question ;-)
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2012 at 7:41 pm
“As it happens, I’ve heard many Catholics charitably refer to Protestants as their “brothers and sisters” (albeit, separated brethren). Why can’t Protestants do the same for Catholics?”
For the same reason that Paul didn’t call the Judaizers “brethren” and the same reason that fathers never called heretics, “separated brethren,” namely because you are following another gospel and are therefore under Paul’s anathema.
The irony is thick – Leo XIII would not own you. For him, Luther was anathema – fox and boar, not a “separated brother.”
His command:
Of course, we have no reason to think that Leo XII has the slightest clue what you are doing, but perhaps God wishes to increase Leo’s suffering in hell and has, therefore, granted him to see what Vatican II papalism looks like – a religion he would not recognize.
He prohibited people from even reading what Luther wrote. Your church issues joint ecumenical statements with Lutherans.
-TurretinFan
TurretinFan said,
August 31, 2012 at 7:42 pm
AB: “Final thought ” Hahaha. Not likely, brother. You’re firmly hooked on this comment box. – TurretinFan
Jeff Cagle said,
August 31, 2012 at 8:28 pm
Dennis,
As a Protestant, I would say that there are two possibilities. The mostly likely is that Peter refers to those who are “blind” are most likely to be those who have forgotten their cleansing from former sins — that is, those who have indeed been justified, but who have not been walking in the light.
Because I believe that God justifies only the elect (Rom 8.30) and gives them the gift of perseverance, I would say that these people will be brought to repentance at some point in their lives. Not because Peter says so directly in here, but rather because I understand that those whom God justifies, he indwells with the Holy Spirit as a deposit guaranteeing the inheritance of the saints (Eph 1.13 – 14).
The less likely possibility is that Peter is referring to those who have outwardly professed faith and have been “cleansed” in man’s eyes, but are demonstrating their hypocrisy by their current blindness.
Andrew Buckingham said,
August 31, 2012 at 8:36 pm
Well….yeah, at least until you reveal yerself, Tf :-)
Andrew McCallum said,
August 31, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Jason (re: 737),
There is this pattern in our conversation of me saying something, you attempting to refute it, and then me agreeing with your statement that is an attempt to correct me. Are you not getting a little tired of this? Do you think that maybe there is something you don’t understand about my position/ paradigm?
For James, “faith alone,” without works, is synonymous with dead faith, just like a body alone, without a spirit, is synonymous with a dead body.
Then after disagreeing with another statement I make you say:
So all James is asking is whether faith can save a man who has no works, the answer to which is no.
And you then try to refute another statement I make answering it thus:
James says that a man who has faith without works is not saved.
The problem here is that I agree with all of these three statements. Given what you understand of the Reformed paradigm why shouldn’t I? Or maybe there is something in the Reformed paradigm that you don’t understand.
One mistake I realize I made was speaking to James 2:18 but referencing verse 14 rather than 18. Do you see that when James says “I will show you by faith by my works” just before he gets into the passage about faith without works being dead that he is saying that his works demonstrate his faith?
feel free to show me where James says anything about “true” faith versus “false” faith.
Sure – James listeners (“someone”) says that they have faith without works and James reply is that his faith is demonstrated by his works. In other words if there are not works then there is no true faith. I don’t think this is too difficult to comprehend – faith with no works is dead. A dead faith is not a true faith, it is just what someone calls “faith.” So do think that this “someone” has true faith if they have no accompanying works or are they deceived into thinking that they have faith? What if you met someone, let’s say who had been baptized in the RCC, but it is obvious that they had none of the works which are commanded of us in Scripture. Would you say that this person has a true and living faith or would you say that their proclaimed faith was a delusion?
I know that is what your paradigm demands James to be saying, but unfortunately, James didn’t say those things because James didn’t hold to your paradigm.
Jason, I have tried very hard to get you to tell us exactly what paradigm YOU are operating from. If you would rather not reply to this because you are still in transition that’s fine. But understand that my tact has been to take the Tridentine statements as the standard for Roman Catholic belief on justification and ask whether the passages in question can be fit into such system or whether the Reformed confessions are a better system. Trent says that justification once lost can be increased by works. It is then the sacraments which confer grace as seen in Trent’s session on the sacraments (Canon 4) where it says that men obtain the grace of justification through the sacraments. It is these kinds of statements which cannot be squared with the statements of Scripture. But then the Medieval tradition upon which the Tridentine Fathers drew so heavily on had little or no reliance on the exegesis of the Greek texts that so dominated Reformed thought.
If you don’t agree with Trent and don’t agree with the Reformed confessions then what do you believe? Again if you don’t want to reply to me then fine, but don’t make me try to aim at a moving target.
jsm52 said,
August 31, 2012 at 9:36 pm
“CONFLICT IS inevitable whenever there is more than one sinner. It has been rightly said that just as you cannot rub flint and iron together with- out getting a spark, so you cannot put two sinners together without hav- ing sparks. Indeed, place a multitude of sinners in one room and fire- works are sure to go off.” – D. Patrick Ramsey
Dennis said,
August 31, 2012 at 10:45 pm
Jeff,
Thank you for your reply. While I obviously don’t agree, I understand your first interpretation of the text.
I think the key difference between Catholics and Protestants regarding our understanding of this text then is how we understand justification then. While I can agree that justification is for the elect, As a Catholic, I see justification through Peter’s “Participation in the Divine Nature” i.e. the Sacraments. We are justified when we are united to Christ in His Death at Baptism. Our justification continues when we come into Communion with Him in the Eucharist and should we “stumble” we become reconciled back to His Body through Penance.
Your second (less likely) interpretation is a little less clear. I understand what you’re saying but don’t see it in the text.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:15 pm
Jason wrote at #764:
“In James’ words, “Abraham’s faith was active along with his works,” which is exactly what Paul means when he says that justification comes not from circumcision, but “faith working through love,” and what Peter means when he says that we must “supplement our faith with love,” and what Paul meant when he said, “If I have all faith but have not love, it profits me nothing.”
James said that “was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?”
“In the same breath” James also said: “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”
These two verses contradict each other (if read in *isolation* from the rest of the text) – James did not say that “Abraham’s faith was active along with his works” but Abraham was justified by works and Abraham was justified by faith (on the basis that the verses are read in isolation).
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:20 pm
St Paul says in Romans 4 concerning Abraham:
What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:
And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.
For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect:
Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
(As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.
And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb:
He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God;
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;
But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Dennis at #782 wrote:
“While I can agree that justification is for the elect, As a Catholic, I see justification through Peter’s “Participation in the Divine Nature” i.e. the Sacraments. We are justified when we are united to Christ in His Death at Baptism. Our justification continues when we come into Communion with Him in the Eucharist and should we “stumble” we become reconciled back to His Body through Penance.”
As a Lutheran, if the Sacraments do “teach” something it is that Justification is “once-for-all,” “definitive.” Baptism teaches that our participation in the death and resurrection of Our Saviour is once for all –never to be repeated. The Lord’s Supper by which Our Saviour gives Himself — holding nothing back — is nothing else but the once-for-all Cross coming to you — overcoming all distance in time and space, in the living present here and now simply by the Words of Institution (WOI), the promise.
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:40 pm
Jeff,
I have no problem with what you’ve said, but I don’t think you’re addressing my last point to you, which was that Peter is attributing saving blessings to the blind (you have been forgiven of past sins, you have been called, you have obtained faith, etc.). So it seems that there should be another option for who the blind are: they could people who experienced true, saving blessings, but who lost them due to their failure to bear fruit and thus do not enter heaven if they die in that barren state (like the branches in the Vine who don’t bear fruit and thus are cut off and cast into the fire).
Would you agree that’s a possibility, given what Peter says?
Jason Loh said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Only justification as once-for-all maintain orthodox christology. Justification by grace reflects heterodox christology. Orthodox christology maintains the personal union in its full integrity. Heterodox christology mixes or confuses the natures, the two kingdoms, the two aeons/ages, etc.
Isn’t one already united to God in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why the need for infused grace? Isn’t the hypostatic union the personal union where the human nature is that of the *divine* person — so that once could even say that the Logos is never apart from the Flesh. Furthermore, how does infused grace reflect the hypostatic union? Seems more like mixing (and by extension confusion) of natures. Shades of Nestorianism and Eutychianism more like …
Jason J. Stellman said,
August 31, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Stuart,
But again, I would argue that you’re stopping short. In 1:22 (the verse you reference), James says, “Be doers of the Word, not hearers only.” He contrasts hearing with doing, whereas you contrast hearing with “having saving faith.” Why not just let James speak? Are you afraid to say the word “do” because, as you say, he eventually gets to the issue of “salvation” and “justification”?
Consider Paul in a passage that is almost identical to James 1:22: “It is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified” (Rom. 2:13). And interesting enough, the immediate context of both these statements is that “God shows no partiality” (which indicates that they’re related, and I would argue further that if James is normative then so is Paul). And not to get too far afield, but a third text that is directly connected to these two is Acts 10, where Peter visits Cornelius. There, the same phrase, “God shows no partiality,” is quoted verbatim, and if I may say so, Cornelius seems to be the exact kind of Gentile Paul described in Rom. 2:14ff, who showed himself a true Jew with a circumcision of the Spirit and not the letter.
Yes, there is a demonstrative element here, but I think many make more of it than is due. First, Abraham’s binding of Isaac, which is James’ example par excellence, was done before the eyes of God alone, which is why he said, “Now I know you love me….” And second, the context in 2:14 is, “Can faith save the man who has no works?” So it’s not just a question of showing to men whether your faith is real, it’s a question about whether one is saved and justified without works.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:00 am
Andrew,
I think I have been very explicit and clear about what paradigm I am coming from. In this very post in which Lane is responding to me, he cited me four lines down from the top as saying, “My thesis is….” The target has not moved an inch.
And if after all these exchanges you still don’t know what kind of paradigm I’m working from, then the two of us communicate much worse than I thought!
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:20 am
Jason re#788 wrote:
“For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
But who can ever be justified by the Law? Who can ever perfectly fulfil the Law? Roman or Protestant paradigm? Isn’t that why purgatory exists in Roman theology?
The preceding verses:
“For there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law; …”
Even the example of supererogatory merits does not negate above verses. To say that “the doers of the law shall be justified” means the *possibility* of justification by faith and works proves too much … because to do justice to the consistency of the interpretation of the text, one would also have to “concede” that pagans/ the heathen can also be justified by works since “… the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”
So justification by faith and works by appeal to Paul (and James) ends up with accommodating justification by works ultimately as the logical outcome (shades of “invicible ignorance”?).
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:28 am
Hebrews 11:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. *For by it* (i.e. for by faith) the elders obtained a good report.
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:29 am
By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
11 Through faith also Sara herself received strength to conceive seed, and was delivered of a child when she was past age, because she judged him faithful who had promised.
12 Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable.
13 These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.
14 For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country.
15 And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son,
18 Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
19 Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure.
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:58 am
Abraham is not an example of faith and good works but faith (alone) as St Paul and the writer of the Hebrews highlight.
IOW, the writers of the NT brought up the case of patriarch Abraham not as the exemplar par excellence of faith and good works but faith. Abraham’s act of obedience flowing from faith was in response to a particular, unique, context-specific will or command of God that is “unrepeatable.” That is, Abraham’s sacrificial offering of Isaac has no parallel or equivalence in the “Law” as universal and natural. To therefore understand Abraham’s act of obedience as exemplifying obedience to the *Law* is grossly inaccurate. The will of God is neither reducible nor synonymous with the Law. Hence, the analogy between justification by faith *and works* (in doing the Law — “New Law”) and Abraham as exemplar par excellence is not proper.
Rather the analogy is between justification by faith alone and Abraham as exemplar par excellence.
The Law claims all of us, not just our works; likewise faith must go *beyond* the *Law* if we are to be freed from the claims and judgment of the Law.
Faith — as “be-ing” goes beyond the Law … whereas work as “do-ing” is *bound* to the Law. Abraham is the exemplar par excellence of faith.
Dennis said,
September 1, 2012 at 1:42 am
Jason,
Baptism teaches that our participation in the death and resurrection of Our Saviour is once for all –never to be repeated.
Yes, this is the same as Catholic teaching. “One Baptism for the forgiveness of sins.”
The Lord’s Supper by which Our Saviour gives Himself — holding nothing back — is nothing else but the once-for-all Cross coming to you — overcoming all distance in time and space, in the living present here and now simply by the Words of Institution (WOI), the promise.
While worded differently, I think we teach the same thing. We learn that Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary was a once-for-all sacrifice which is made present in the Eucharist. So that the His sacrifice transcends time and space (CCC 1357, CCC1367)
if the Sacraments do “teach” something it is that Justification is “once-for-all,” “definitive.”
I would not agree with this. We are justified when our sins are forgiven. We are justified at our baptism. However, if we should be disobedient to God’s will (i.e. sin), if we don’t “escape from the corruption that is in the world because of evil desire” per 2 Peter 1:4, we are blind and we become forgetful of our past cleansing(per v9) which can put our justification is in jeopardy.
Only justification as once-for-all maintain orthodox christology. Justification by grace reflects heterodox christology. Orthodox christology maintains the personal union in its full integrity. Heterodox christology mixes or confuses the natures, the two kingdoms, the two aeons/ages, etc.
Isn’t one already united to God in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Why the need for infused grace? Isn’t the hypostatic union the personal union where the human nature is that of the *divine* person — so that once could even say that the Logos is never apart from the Flesh. Furthermore, how does infused grace reflect the hypostatic union? Seems more like mixing (and by extension confusion) of natures. Shades of Nestorianism and Eutychianism more like …
Is this directed to me? If so, can you please explain what you mean? I’m not following…
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 2:53 am
No, Dennis, latter paras were not directed at you in particular — directed to Roman Catholics no doubt but none in particular.
I’m trying to say that infused grace presupposes and implies that our union with the God-Man – the Person of the Incarnate One – is “insufficient.” IOW, participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ is enough, more than enough without any need for infused grace. Our death and resurrection in Jesus Christ is real and “metaphysical” although not ontological since the Old Adam remains on this of the eschaton — hence the New Adam is eschatological but truly and really hidden in, with and under the Old Adam.
Isn’t the Cross (and Resurrection) enough for our salvation (as the Nicene Creed confesses … “Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man”) as conceived as union with God (which for Lutherans is realised by imputation of the effective forensic word of the gospel)? Why the need for infused grace? Infused grace presupposes and implies a Christian anthropology (or doctrine of the human) whereby the catechumen or convert is a continuous existing subject. Death and resurrection means precisely the subject dies to the old self and is raised up anew which means no continuity between the old and new.
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 4:25 am
Jason at #788 said:
“Yes, there is a demonstrative element here, but I think many make more of it than is due. First, Abraham’s binding of Isaac, which is James’ example par excellence, was done before the eyes of God alone, which is why he said, “Now I know you love me….” And second, the context in 2:14 is, “Can faith save the man who has no works?” So it’s not just a question of showing to men whether your faith is real, it’s a question about whether one is saved and justified without works.”
The appeal to Yahweh’s declaration: “Now I know you love Me” as the justification of Abraham proves too much …
1. It means that the Roman paradigm is “wrong-footed” — in the Roman paradigm, justification is a process, progression. Yahweh’s declaration doesn’t seem to imply that justification is on-going. Rather Yahweh’s declaration and sacrificial offering of Abraham are taken together to constitute the *event* of justification. After all, if there is a consensus amongst the NT writers — it is that they all appeal to the sacrificial offering of Isaac by Abraham as the example par excellence. IOW, they concentrate on that example as constitutive of Abraham’s conduct as believer. But Genesis 22 gives no indication of justification as on-going corresponding to this unique, one-off/ once-for-all event in the life of Abraham.
2. There is no indication that Yahweh’s declaration implies that Abraham’s act of obedience “merited entrance to eternal life.” Rather his act is intimately tied to the history of salvation itself (historia salutis) — not the ordo salutis (order of salvation) if I may be permitted to appeal to the Reformed tradition. Paul in Romans 4 affirms it – if there is link between the two ordos it is … *faith* — Abraham’s faith as righteousness (For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith”) and Abraham as the father of believers (by faith and election).
Historia salutis:
“By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my voice.”
Ordo salutis:
“… [F]or we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also: And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
(Romans 4:9-13).
So St Paul is saying Abraham was already justified by faith prior to his act of obedience to the particular will of God in salvation history — which parallels the reality of the Father sending His Only-Begotten Son to this world as the Sacrifice for sins.
IOW, in the sight of God, Abraham was already justified by faith.
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 4:33 am
“Now I know you love me….” coram Deo therefore refers to the context of historia salutis.
Maybe this is why James, despite his emotional appeal to Abraham’s example was careful to include verse 23 (of James 2): “And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.” IOW, despite what has been said about the relationship between faith and good works, at the end of the day, Abraham was justified by faith in the sight of God (as regards the ordo salutis).
Both ordos no doubt involve both coram Deo and coram mundo. IOW, within historia salutis, there is the role of the human as “co-workers” as is within the ordo salutis. The thrust of James 2 is not the same as Genesis 22 … the former is on the ordo salutis — historia salutis is what it is, unrepeatable, unique and without parallel in history.
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:25 am
Besides how does the “Now I know you love me….” – interpreted as justification on the basis of faith and works – fit with the agape paradigm wherein infused love by the Lord and Giver of life enables us to love God in return in our state of habitual grace?? That is, even if the declaration is interpreted as consistent with the agape paradigm, by itself it does not fit easily *into* the agape paradigm.
The declaration – when interpreted contextually – imply that the testing or trial of Abraham was not *redemptive* for him qua believer but qua the father of believers — i.e. not in relation to God (coram mundo) but in relation to humanity (coram mundo). IOW, God’s testing of *Abraham* presupposes the presence of faith (as epitomised by circumcision) for only one who has faith can be tested. Otherwise, one can be saved apart from grace. But God was already gracious to Abraham in making a covenant with him. That being the case, Abraham was justified earlier on and if so, why the need to be justified all over again?
Unless, the Roman paradigm of justification as a process is read into the text. But if justification comes at the beginning, then the end is superfluous; and, if justification comes at the end, then the beginning of the movement was likewise redundant. But the context of Genesis 22 and NT explication do not speak of Abraham justified by his faithfulness. Instead, God is faithful in justifying Abraham. God is faithful by way of He confirming His oath/ promise to the patriarch again in the way of trial and tribulation/ suffering.
IOW, despite all appearances to the contrary — despite the command or will of God, Abraham continued to have faith in God’s *promise.* That is to say, Abraham was credited by the NT writers for trusting in the word of the promise (faith) — i.e. God’s faithfulness rather than trusting in his own act of obedience (i.e. his own faithfulness) …
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:31 am
Hebrews 6:
10 For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love, which ye have shewed toward his name, in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.
11 And we desire that every one of you do shew the same diligence to the *full assurance of hope* unto the end:
12 That ye be not slothful, but followers of them who through *faith and patience* inherit the promises.
13 For when God made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself,
14 Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee.
15 And so, after he had *patiently endured*, he obtained the promise.
16 For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife.
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the *immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath*:
18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil;
20 Whither the forerunner is for us entered, even Jesus, made an high priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
A Battle-Cry of the Reformation:
“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith:The *just* shall walk by *faith* (alone),” Romans 1:17
Jason Loh said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:36 am
Which is Luther liked to say that when God (as “Hidden God”) is against you, you are to flee to the Promised One (Who is the “Revealed God”) — in Whom both the Promiser and Promise are One and same Subject.
The example of Abraham is perhaps the ultimate example in the history of salvation of a believer trusting in the promise of God’s faithfulness despite apperances to the contrary. This is why Abraham was justified by faith alone coram Deo as the writers of the NT attest.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:37 am
Jason (#586): So it seems that there should be another option for who the blind are: they could people who experienced true, saving blessings, but who lost them due to their failure to bear fruit and thus do not enter heaven if they die in that barren state (like the branches in the Vine who don’t bear fruit and thus are cut off and cast into the fire).
That was option (5a).
—
OK, so if we agree so far, then the next question is how to choose between options a, b, or c? What dispositive evidence pushes us in one direction or the other?
Jeff Cagle said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:44 am
Dennis (and Jason):
Here’s just one feature about Catholicism that I don’t get. If one truly believes that justification is forfeited entirely by a mortal sin, then one would naturally have to say that there is kingdom reversion — that the lapsed sinner has been transferred back out of the kingdom of the Son and into the kingdom of darkness.
This leads to two questions (out of legion!):
(1) Does not Heb 6, if we interpret it to be referring to loss of salvation, make repentance impossible? How then can there be a sacrament of penance after a mortal sin?
and relatedly
(2) If the lapsed sinner is restored to faith, then ought he not to be baptized again?
I understand that the RCC teaches that baptism is once-for-all.
But the internal logic seems shaky: if one needs ontologically to be re-cleansed, then one ought to need sacramentally to be re-cleansed.
Contrapositively, if the sacrament leaves its indelible effect on even a lapsed mortal sinner, then justification ought also to do so.
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 7:58 am
It might be becoming a dog pile?
We are real happy, as people who interpret justification, as Luther does. Some Roman Catholics will never accept Luther or Calvin.
Isn’t it nice to know that God chose to love me, unconditionally, apart from who my favorite theologians are, or, what church I belong to?
Just everyone remember, this debate will probably go on another 500 years. The more this debate takes place, as regards what Scripture teaches, and away from an individual minister’s resignation, the better.
We are saved because of the finished work of Christ, accredited to us, while we were dead in our sin (Eph 2). A lot of people reject Calvin and Luther. But for us, we will continue to talk about the joy of knowing the truth of this, in our lives.
I look forward to really reading all these comments closer, later.
For now, just remember, we are not saved by our combox statements. But our combox statements are driven by the knowledge of this glorious understanding of how God deals with us, His children.
Pot calling the kettle black,
Andrew
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:12 am
Andrew B: Just everyone remember, this debate will probably go on another 500 years.
I disagree. We have enough historical information now to have made a lie of the things Roman Catholicism taught about the origin of the papacy. Rome has greatly adjusted its story over the last 50 years about how this happened.
Even Schaff knew of this. Read in his History, Vol 1, and you’ll see he’s got sections on The Peter of History and the Peter of Fiction. One of the reasons that the papacy was able to take root was because, by the fourth century, “the Peter of Fiction” was hugely accepted as historical fact. This is clearer than ever today.
The Internet of our day will do for this “debate” what the printing press did for Luther. I.e., we will see movement on this collective group of issues sooner rather than later.
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:13 am
From the Tillich link, in my comment above:
We think of the Reformation. This was a moment in the history of the Church in which the question of authority was once more in the center of events. Luther, and consequently the whole Protestant world, broke away from the Roman Church and from 1500 years of Christian tradition when no agreement about the authority of the pope and the councils could be reached. Here, again, someone had arisen who spoke and acted with an authority the sources of which could not be determined by legal means. And here also we must ask, “Are the Catholic authorities who rejected him in the name of their established authority to be blamed for it?” But if we do not blame them, we can ask them, “Why do you blame the Jewish authorities who did exactly the same as you did when the people said of the Reformers that they spoke with authority and not like the priests and monks?” Is the same thing so different if it is done by the Jewish high priest and if it is done by the Roman high priest? And one may ask the present-day Protestant authorities in Europe and in this country, “Are you certain that the insistence on your authority, on your tradition, and on your experience does not suppress the kind of authority which Jesus had in mind?
-Dr Paul Tillich, from ‘by what authority?’, sermon on Luke 20:1-8
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:19 am
Andrew B 805:
If you are going to be on our side, you should at least take care to get your facts straight. Luther did not “break away”. He sought Reform, and he was excommunicated.
As well, I think, upon further review, you may find that Luther and the consequently most of the Protestant world have far more in common with “1500 years of Christian tradition” — the better part of it anyway.
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:19 am
John Bugay 804,
Good corrective. I like your optimism. The more we can utilize this tool, the internet, like the reformers used the printing press, yes, we can indeed consecrate our labors and further the Gospel, on all fronts.
I just don’t want this to become a war for Jason Stellman. There are a lot of people in our own churches who need to have the Gospel explained more clearly, and we need to love those God has put in our lives. Jason is not technically in our immediate circles anymore. I fear we may Ie placing too much attention on his theology.
Thank
Andrew McCallum said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:20 am
I think I have been very explicit and clear about what paradigm I am coming from. In this very post in which Lane is responding to me, he cited me four lines down from the top as saying, “My thesis is….” The target has not moved an inch.
Jason (re: 789)
And was it that Lane said right after this quote? Let me remind you – 1) there was a fair amount of your quote that we agreed with, and 2) your summary was incomplete. So I have spent quite a number of posts A) trying to get you to see that what you and I were saying was often entirely compatible (or at least potentially so) and B) asking you to flesh out just what it is that you believe. Concerning A, take a look again at the three sentences that I quote from you in my last post (780) – they don’t describe a position that is contrary to the Reformed one. I’m not sure what they describe.
But if the plan is to compare RC with Protestant paradigms why don’t we just start with the very clear and unambiguous statements of the Roman Catholic Church from the 16th century? This was the first attempt of the RCC to dogmatically and comprehensively define justification. I thought this was a good idea but apparently you don’t. But there you have it….
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:23 am
Again, JB, that’s fair. The Tillich thing is an irenic attempt. Look how he compares Luther ‘seeking to reform’ as when Jesus took his task to the Jewish authorities.
I’m fine so long as you want to clear up my statements. I don’t want to earn the title of blue dog.
I will be reading,
Andrew
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:37 am
Andrew B 807: I just don’t want this to become a war for Jason Stellman.
Of course it is not. As one of my colleagues wrote, “of what import is this man, his “conversion” or whatever it is he represents?” Bryan Cross (and those like him) and Jason Stellman (and those like him) were prophesied in Matt 15:14.
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:37 am
Tilich overlaid existensial with Christian language. He’s not my favorite. But I think worth knowing, in the ongoing RC / Prot dialogue. For all his problems, some of his writing does display, if nothing else, a very active and creative mJust Just take him with a grain of salt. I though maybe he would appeal to the Bryan Cross philosophy types.
Best to stick with the Bible, or at least those that share our high view of Holy Wit.sketake him witwit
Andrew Buckingham said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:40 am
Thanks again, John Bugay. Then maybe let’s head over to David Gadbois’ discussion on Galatians. Im sorry. I’m just glad to here you say it. Peace.
Andrew McCallum said,
September 1, 2012 at 8:54 am
Here’s just one feature about Catholicism that I don’t get. If one truly believes that justification is forfeited entirely by a mortal sin, then one would naturally have to say that there is kingdom reversion….
Jeff – Popular devotion in the Medieval era was characterized by this cycle of worry – worry that one had committed sins grave enough to loose justification and then worry that the sacramental works performed were not enough to regain this state of justification. There is nothing that I can see in Trent to ameliorate the situation. Today most Roman Catholics don’t seem to suffer the same sort of torments that previous generations of RC’s did. Perhaps they just have not read enough of the history of their dogma. Don’t know….
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 9:03 am
Jeff Cagle 802, and Andrew McCallum 813:
See The Sacramental Treadmill.
stuart said,
September 1, 2012 at 9:07 am
Jason,
I appreciate the pushback.
You said . . .
But again, I would argue that you’re stopping short. In 1:22 (the verse you reference), James says, “Be doers of the Word, not hearers only.” He contrasts hearing with doing, whereas you contrast hearing with “having saving faith.” Why not just let James speak? Are you afraid to say the word “do” because, as you say, he eventually gets to the issue of “salvation” and “justification”?
Maybe I am stopping short, but I don’t see it. And, respectfully you don’t know my views well enough to know whether I’m afraid of saying the word “do.” I’m not, btw, because I believe the Scriptures in general teach that saving faith and works cannot be separated. That’s what I think James is saying here too. If we say we have faith but there are never any works, the “faith” we have is not the faith Abraham had and thus it is not saving faith at all. The illustration I have used on numerous occasions (not a perfect illustration, mind you, but it usually gets the point across) is of a woman who says she is pregnant. If 9 months go by and there is no sign of a baby, we know something is wrong.
That said, I would like to hear your take on Ephesians 2:8-10 . . . For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
In this passage Paul seems to be saying our works contribute nothing to our salvation but are part of the gift of salvation itself. If I compare this passage to James 2, I either
a) see them as contradicting each other
or
b) saying something very similar . . . works don’t contribute to the gift of salvation but if there are no works there is no salvation.
Maybe you have a different take that I haven’t thought about. If so, I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Reed Here said,
September 1, 2012 at 10:21 am
Stuart: Jason understands the reformed paradigm quite well. No need to query that. Instead, go ahead and assumed he gets that and find out where he disagrees with it. He’s no babe in the woods.
Reed Here said,
September 1, 2012 at 10:26 am
John, no. 814: that’s pretty good. Anyone do the reformed flow chart in similar form? Wonderful to compare the two pictures.
paigebritton said,
September 1, 2012 at 11:56 am
Wowee, John. What’s the source?
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 11:59 am
Reed 817, I don’t know about a similar chart for the Reformed, but it’d be much simpler.
I think it’s important to note here that, in the Roman Catholic system, when “works” are required, those “works” don’t necessarily mean “feeding the hungry, clothing the naked”, etc. Those mayenter the picture at the little phrases “acts of penance” and “good works”.
But in reality, the “works” that MUST be done are all the steps in the penance/eucharist flowcharts. These represent “the precepts of the church”, and that, too, works out in practice to be a law higher than Christ’s law. That is, you may do all the feeding/clothing you may care to do, but if you don’t do the penance/eucharist-related tasks within certain time frames, that is “mortal sin” which will disqualify the “merits” of all those other things.
The Roman system has you by the neck.
paigebritton said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:06 pm
But Reed, ours would only have about three boxes. That’s so boring.
paigebritton said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:15 pm
John #819 —
Not to mention, what’s the PURPOSE of the works? This system seems built to promote focus on the self — not meaning to imply that Catholics are in general more self-centered than anybody else, but merely that the system if followed assiduously would tend to breed a self-centered anxiety in a tender conscience. (As does any system that is not founded on grace first and last; I see this anxiety in some who have learned their Christian faith & practice from non-reformed evangelicalism, and I see the potential also in my sincere halakhik neo-orthodox Jewish friends.)
pb
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Hi Paige — The chart originally appeared, in several smaller pieces, in James McCarthy’s “The Gospel According to Rome,” Eugene Oregon: Harvest House Publishing (c)1995. He had a few things wrong, and so I re-drew the chart and fixed the mistakes (one of which was to have purgatory wrong, if I recall).
It is a very “self-focused” system, but they’ll say something like “it’s not inconsistent with the verse ‘continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling’…”
Roman Catholic hermeneutic doesn’t seek to find what the text is actually talking about; it’s purpose is to begin with Roman doctrines, and only then, after the fact, to “use Biblical texts in such a way that they can seemingly provide support for those doctrines”.
I’ve cited several popes saying almost precisely those words about their hermeneutic.
stuart said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Hi Reed,
If you think my approach to Jason is on the wrong path, I’ll gladly cease and desist. There are plenty of commenters who are more articulate than I anyway.
That said, I would offer the suggestion (not only for you, but for all of us) that there is too much assuming going on already in discussions like this one, and with all due respect I don’t think we need more.
I know Jason is no babe in the woods, and I realize his past Reformed pedigree. I followed his blog for several years (mostly as a reader and not much of a commenter) just as I have followed many of the discussions on this blog. So I am not unfamiliar with him or his past views. I am, however, interested in his current views and how he arrived there.
But again, if my approach to a conversation with Jason doesn’t suit this forum, I’ll fold.
Andrew McCallum said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Interesting John,
I would be interested in know what the Catholics reading here think of particularly the de-justification/re-justification loop. One apparently gets de-justified if he commits mortal sins, but there is no precise definition of just what these sins are. I read a discussion between some Catholics recently where it was pointed out that masturbation is a mortal sin although sometimes there are mitigating circumstances. There are some sins which are obviously mortal (i.e. murder) but others where the Church cannot say for sure (i.e. envy). This is one of those areas of theology where it seems to me that the EO have a much better angle. For the EO sin is sin and they never tried to segment sins into categories like the RC’s did. I would guess that the whole mortal/venial thing, and the relationship of such sins to man’s state of justification, is a product of the speculative dogmatic theories of the Scholastics. Think I will do some digging on this tonight….
It’s the kind of process described in John’s chart that I was hoping that Jason might try to defend from Scripture. Most Catholics I think would defend the process as being part of the tradition of the RCC rather than giving a specifically biblical exegetical response concerning justification. But this raises the question as to why a Catholic would reference the Scriptures at all. If what we are supposed to know about justification is contained in the tradition of the Church of which Scriptures is only one part, then appealing to Scripture would mean appealing to an incomplete set of truths.
Andrew McCallum said,
September 1, 2012 at 12:52 pm
As does any system that is not founded on grace first and last…
Paige,
Re your 821, I could be wrong but I believe that most conservative Catholics, at least those following a Thomistic framework, would say they they do believe in a system that is founded on grace from first to last. Aquinas was an Augustinian on the function of grace IOW. This to me presents one of the tensions in the system – everything begins with the grace of God but once one falls from God’s grace (gets de-justified) then everything depends on them doing sacramental works. So yes, it’s in effect a very self-focused paradigm.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Andrew 824:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c3a3.htm#II
The footnotes all lead to the “Code of Canon Law” (“CIC”).
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Paige 829 — You asked “what’s the purpose of the works?”
One thing that hasn’t come up in this discussion of “what actually is grace?”
For Roman Catholics, “grace” is a kind of ontological substance, a little bit of oil that gets nurtured by that “sacramental treadmill”. That is, you get more of it as you go, and it can dry up, so to speak. That’s why the Roman Catholics here are fighting so hard to sell a system of “infusion”.
For Protestants, “grace” is the favor of God. It’s not a substance. So, once God forgives you, “justifies” you, he’s not going to “take it back”.
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 1:55 pm
Actually, in the scheme of things, for Roman Catholics, “justification” is not a very important thing. So I’m not sure why these guys are so focused on it.
In a section entitled “The eclipse of justification, 1950-2000”, McGrath says:
Later, he suggests that this “marginalization” of justification has occurred because justification is an “ecumenical problem” (pg 413). That is, “One of the socialogical functions of doctrinal statements isto divide — whether to distinguish the church from the world, or one denomination from another …” McGrath looks at Kung’s work comparing, for example, Barth’s views on justification and those of the Council of Trent, “and argued that there was fundamental agreement between the position of Barth and that of the Roman Catholic church, seen in its totality” (414). He looks at some of the other “ecumenical dialogs” and notes how some of these discussions have focused on “other, more malleable soteriological issues without problematic historical associations” (418).
In reality, Rome itself has changed its emphasis, more to emphasize “the Church” as “the universal sacrament of salvation”:
More on that here:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/05/roman-catholic-ecclesiology-church-that.html.
Reed Here said,
September 1, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Stuart, not suggesting you fold. On the contrary, suggesting you dig in. Not sure how familiar you are with Jason, but he is VERY familiar with the reformed relationship between faith and works. He just no longer buys it.
Mine is simply a suggestion that with Jason, and for the rest of our sakes, go ahead and skip the formalities. Ask him why the reformed system does not hold? That will get you quicker to profitable conversation. And at 829 comments, we could all use that. :-) Thanks!
johnbugay said,
September 1, 2012 at 2:23 pm
“The Reformers’ forensic understanding of justification … the idea of an immediate divine imputation [of righteousness] renders superfluous the entire Catholic system of the priestly mediation of grace by the Church.” (Bruce McCormack, What’s at Stake in the Current Debates over Justification, from Husbands and Treier’s Justification, pg 82.)
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 1, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Jeff,
Of your options for who the blind are, I said, “ So it seems that there should be another option for who the blind are: they could people who experienced true, saving blessings, but who lost them due to their failure to bear fruit and thus do not enter heaven if they die in that barren state (like the branches in the Vine who don’t bear fruit and thus are cut off and cast into the fire).”
And you responded:
Oh, OK. I was confused because all option 5a said was that the blind die in their state and are lost, and I didn’t notice anything about their having been true Christians at some point. So you are conceding that possibility? Cool.
Well, I obviously think the passage itself favors 5a (that the blind are people who had a true participation in Christ’s salvation but who, due to their unfruitfulness, were finally lost.
As I argued already, I see the text indiscriminately applying saving blessings, and potential expulsion from the kingdom, to the same persons. And further, how can this talk of fruitfulness not remind us of Jesus’ Vine and branches analogy? There it is perfectly clear that there are some branches “in the Vine” who fail to bear fruit and are cast into the fire (I realize there will be interpretive disagreements over that text as well, I only bring it up to show you how I am thinking).
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 1, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Stuart,
OK, I keep saying it’s not the quality of the faith that’s the issue, but its being devoid of works of love, and you keep disagreeing. Let me try another approach: Paul says in I Cor. 13, “If I have all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing,” and my question is this: Is the problem with Paul’s faith itself, i.e., that it is not true or saving? Or is his problem that his faith is alone and devoid of works of love?
I think the answer is obviously the latter, which is exactly what I think James is also talking about. But if you think Paul’s problem is the former (that there was something wrong with his faith), then my next question would be about how he could move mountains with it.
I think that’s a great illustration. Let’s say you run into a woman whom you haven’t seen for years, and she announces that she just found out she is pregnant. Then you see her again six months later and her stomach is completely flat. What happened? Well, as you say, something certainly went wrong. It’s possible that her doctor falsely diagnosed her as pregnant (although that is extremely unlikely since even home pregnancy tests don’t give false positives). It’s possible that she was lying about being pregnant (but that’s unlikely too unless she is also insane, since it’s a lie that cannot but be exposed in a matter of months).
The other option, and the most likely one since it happens all the time, is that she was telling the truth about having been pregnant, but she miscarried.
So my question to you is, Is it possible for a similar thing to happen to Christians today? Can we experience the saving life of Christ in our souls, but then have that life exterminated through heinous, habitual sin? It seems to me that the NT answers that pretty clearly in the affirmative.
And if that’s so, then there’s no reason why James can’t be talking about people who truly have faith (just like those branches were truly united to the Vine, and just like Paul’s faith can truly move mountains), but since their faith was not working through love, it profited nothing. It was faith alone, or, dead faith. Like a real body without a spirit to animate it.
I think we need to distinguish, as I believe Paul does, between works that are my own, and works that are Spirit-wrought. Clearly the former contribute nothing, and these are what he is talking about here, as well as in Phil. 3: “not having a righteousness of my own, based on the law.”
But I also think it is a mistake to attribute the inability of my own righteousness to save me to the fruit of the Spirit, and say that none of the righteousness wrought in me can graciously contribute to my final salvation. As I have been trying to argue, the NT everywhere teaches otherwise.
So the “works prepared beforehand” in v. 10 are different from the works mentioned earlier, which cannot save. And my question to you is, If the Ephesians refused to walk in the works of love that they were commanded to walk in, would that not be like the unfaithful servant who was graciously given a talent, but buried it in the ground? If he had multiplied his talents and gained entrance into the kingdom, would it be any less by grace? The talents themselves were a gift, right? If you were to ask the servant who turned his five talents into ten if he was in the kingdom because of his own works, he would have vehemently denied such a thing. But it’s also true that what he did with his talents played some kind of role in his entering the kingdom.
There’s nothing ungracious about the gospel I am arguing for, is what I am saying.
Dennis said,
September 1, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Jeff,
If one truly believes that justification is forfeited entirely by a mortal sin, then one would naturally have to say that there is kingdom reversion — that the lapsed sinner has been transferred back out of the kingdom of the Son and into the kingdom of darkness.
You’re not “transferred out” it’s more like you “wander out.” The best way to understand mortal sin is to read the story of the Prodigal Son in Luke 15. This is a son who wandered off to a faraway land and squandered his inheritance on booze and a “life of dissipation.” Meanwhile, the father is waiting and watching for his son to come back.
Mortal sin severs your relationship with God. Not because of God but because of a willful rejection of God’s love.
(1) Does not Heb 6, if we interpret it to be referring to loss of salvation, make repentance impossible? How then can there be a sacrament of penance after a mortal sin?
and relatedly
Hebrews 6:6 is talking about apostasy. Specifically Jews who become Christians who fully understand Christianity to reject it and walk away. Not about mortal sin. This would be if I as a Catholic Christian who understands what it is the Church teaches and reject it and go to a different teaching. That would be akin to recrucifying Christ. Repentance from that would be almost impossible because the individual’s heart would be so calcified and hardened to God’s love that it would reject God’s grace.
(2) If the lapsed sinner is restored to faith, then ought he not to be baptized again?
I understand that the RCC teaches that baptism is once-for-all.</i?
No. Once we are baptized, we become adopted sons and daughters of God. We bear an indelible spiritual mark that cannot be erased by sin.
But the internal logic seems shaky: if one needs ontologically to be re-cleansed, then one ought to need sacramentally to be re-cleansed.
Yes, that is correct. Should we stumble and fall back into sin, we need to come back to Christ. We need to be “reconciled” and the Church offers the sacrament of Penance to reconcile us back to the Body of Christ. Additionally, through the sacrament of the Eucharist, sins (venial) are forgiven as we receive the Body of Christ. Once baptized, we are called to continual conversion. We are asked to keep conforming ourselves to Christ which is continual in our lives.
bsuden said,
September 1, 2012 at 4:44 pm
832 So my question to you is, Is it possible for a similar thing to happen to Christians today? Can we experience the saving life of Christ in our souls, but then have that life exterminated through heinous, habitual sin?
IOW so much for efficacious grace, which both Rome and the FV deny.
It seems to me that the NT answers that pretty clearly in the affirmative.
But then what of Matt. 7:17-20?
However redundant, the NT to the contrary deserves to be quoted in opposition to the propaganda, which through incessant repetition attempts to achieve the much to be desired effect of ignoring the obvious.
For my money, I am still waiting for the exposition of the gospel of infusion as found in Philemon. To be sure, it will be short, sweet and to the point.
I can hardly wait.
stuart said,
September 1, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Jason,
Paul says in I Cor. 13, “If I have all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing,” and my question is this: Is the problem with Paul’s faith itself, i.e., that it is not true or saving? Or is his problem that his faith is alone and devoid of works of love?
I appreciate your line of questioning, but my question back to you is this: Is a hypothetical question asked by Paul to make a point about the more excellent way of love really the best place to build a theology about how faith and works of love go together? Exaggeration has been used by preachers of all sorts to get a main point across. Verse 3 of 1 Cor 13 seems to indicate some exaggeration is going on. So since Paul’s main point isn’t justification in 1 Cor, I’m not sure we’re going to get very far going down this route.
So my question to you is, Is it possible for a similar thing to happen to Christians today? Can we experience the saving life of Christ in our souls, but then have that life exterminated through heinous, habitual sin? It seems to me that the NT answers that pretty clearly in the affirmative.
It looks like we’re going to disagree on how clear the NT is on God’s loving preservation of his people. I’m not clear how we can be God’s workmanship created in Christ Jesus to do good works and yet exterminate life.
So the “works prepared beforehand” in v. 10 are different from the works mentioned earlier, which cannot save. And my question to you is, If the Ephesians refused to walk in the works of love that they were commanded to walk in, would that not be like the unfaithful servant who was graciously given a talent, but buried it in the ground? If he had multiplied his talents and gained entrance into the kingdom, would it be any less by grace?
Again, what does it mean to be God’s workmanship created in Christ to do good works? . . . that we’re given some gifts by God and commanded to do something but it’s up to us from there on?
Reed Here said,
September 1, 2012 at 6:20 pm
Jason: reading these last set of comments here leads me to pose this question:
Do you think the Federal Vision guys are in error? If so, what?
I’m wondering particularly if you see them as making a good start but not being consistent. Thanks!
Andrew McCallum said,
September 2, 2012 at 12:45 am
Paul says in I Cor. 13, “If I have all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing,” and my question is this: Is the problem with Paul’s faith itself, i.e., that it is not true or saving? Or is his problem that his faith is alone and devoid of works of love?
I don’t get it Jason. Why does it have to be one or the other? Faith without works is a dead faith and is thus not saving. Didn’t James say that we cannot be justified by a faith where no works are present? So if this faith is devoid of works it cannot save.
Why do you think that James uses the term “dead” to describe this faith devoid of works? Why not “weak” or “imperfect?” What exactly can someone or something accomplish who/that is dead? What can a dead animal on the side of the road do? What can a dead person accomplish? So then finally what can a dead faith do? Dead things don’t do or accomplish anything – they are dead! And in the case of faith, if it is dead it cannot justify, it cannot save, it cannot do anything.
I think Stuart has answered your question about faith, mountains, etc. I Cor. 13 is hardly the place to look for a treatise on the relationship between faith and works. But even if it was, there are endless examples in Scripture of people with great faith who demonstrated a shocking lack of love during times in their lives. I cor. 13 reminds us that all of our faith in God won’t get us anywhere unless we demonstrate love. Again, the examples from Scripture of this fact are legion.
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 12:46 am
Jason wrote at #832:
“Paul says in I Cor. 13, “If I have all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, it profits me nothing,” and my question is this: Is the problem with Paul’s faith itself, i.e., that it is not true or saving? Or is his problem that his faith is alone and devoid of works of love?”
Is 1 Cor 13:2 an echo of Matthew 17:20?
Matt 17:18-21 reads:
“And Jesus rebuked the devil; and he departed out of him: and the child was cured from that very hour. Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”
Thus, it would seem that there is a possibility Paul might not be referring to faith as trust in the promise or Word but faith in God to perform miracles. In other words, a faith that is not so much created by hearing the preached Word (man-ward movement) but faith that is moved to pray (God-ward movement) for a miracle to happen — the difference between a sacramental and sacrificial faith. The context of 1 Cor 13 and Matthew 17 would strongly suggest that what Paul had in mind was faith in the miraculous.
However it is not a faith in the proclamation of the Word in its oral and sacramental forms (where the the second person pronoun in employed = “for you” — as a digression this is not emphatically not the same as FV which even as a Lutheran I reject), i.e. the faith by which one is justified. IOW, it is not the Pauline faith that is soteriological in nature but providential (Matthew 17). And that too must be considered in the context of the supernatural “by-passing” the natural — hence the miraculous, i.e. prior to the “termination” of the divine revelation.
Pauline faith is very specific – it is trust in something material/ tangible (Romans 10:13). Here Paul is dealing with claims of the super-material – especially by the super-apostles (so-called). And “ironically” or “intriguingly” in dealing with a type of “over-realised eschatology” in the Corinthian churches, Paul appealed to love as the only “disposition” that remains. For faith is only on this side of the eschaton after which is the beatific vision of the I AM of the Old and New Testaments, i.e. the Person of Jesus Christ Himself (not the essence).
Just as the Charismatic churches of today, the Corinthian churches confused sacrificial faith with sacramental faith – indeed consistent with their theology preferred the one (“extraordinary”) over the other (“ordinary”).
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 1:13 am
In short, far from demanding that faith must be accompanied by love to be justifying, Paul is questioning the faith held by many in the Corinthian churches (IOW, according to their, i.e. the Corinthian, own understanding of faith) hence the implicit reference to the miraculous implied by the phrase “removing mountains.”
Judged according to the Corinthian standard or definition of faith – which confuses passive faith (sacramental) with active faith (sacrificial) – which contextually revolved around the unmediated supernaturalism, the Corinthians themselves lacked love.
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 1:26 am
Jason re#831 wrote:
“And further, how can this talk of fruitfulness not remind us of Jesus’ Vine and branches analogy? There it is perfectly clear that there are some branches “in the Vine” who fail to bear fruit and are cast into the fire.”
How is the Roman Church the embodiment of the Vine? Our Lord says that “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you” (John 15:3). This declaration doesn’t square with the Roman paradigm and system.
jsm52 said,
September 2, 2012 at 2:37 am
Joson Loh @ 840,
Well said!
jsm52 said,
September 2, 2012 at 2:38 am
Sorry… ‘Jason’
You nailed it…
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 5:57 am
Thank you for your encouraging words, Jack.
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 6:32 am
The context of 1 Cor 13 was that the Corinthian churches elevated the “extra-ordinary spiritual” gifts (i.e. faith that gives) over the “ordinary spiritual gifts” in Word and Sacraments (i.e. faith that receives). By implication, the Corinthian churches favoured the work of the Holy Spirit in them over work of Christ for them — they downplayed justification whilst at the same time overplayed sanctification.
By extension, St Paul was confronted with a situation in the Corinthian churches whereby faith in the work of the Holy Spirit IN them was considered more spiritual and hence was what really mattered coram Deo. And this meant that the Corinthian super-apostles, hyper-spiritual members, etc. placed their faith in their own faith as regards their status coram Deo.
Of course, once you do that, it’s logical to also ask whether your faith is sincere or not. If your faith is truly and really sincere, then your faith would have been complemented and supplemented by love or motivated by love. Thus, Paul was simply pressing the logic of Corinthian spirituality to their logical conclusion. At the same time, it is also true that at the consummation, the old will have past completely and forever. Thus the antithesis between faith and sight will naturally disappear. I suppose seen in this light, Paul’s argument is a two-edged sword.
Jason Loh said,
September 2, 2012 at 7:40 am
But of course if one wants to say that Paul insists that Christians must have love for faith to be justifying, the poser is why then does Paul seems to be denigrating faith in favour of love as if that it is in direct parallel to the Corinthians elevation of faith in favour of love?
IOW, is St Paul teaching – based on 1 Cor 13 – that we are justified by (our) love? Or are justified by faith and love? But does the latter imply the inclusion of good works? It would seem that if one wants to be consistent, then ultimately Paul would be interpret as saying that the Corinthian is justified by faith, love and hope *apart* from good works?
After all the Pauline definition of love here does not include works. And if it is possible for a Christian to perform good works without love – even if Paul had meant his statement to be a “rhetorical device,” then at the very least Pauline love is not synonymous with good works – i.e. the two do not share the same logical status.
Love and Good Works as Distinct:
“And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
Love as Disposition:
Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil; Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth; Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.”
Love as Everlasting:
And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.
IOW, one is therefore justified by having the “right disposition.” Even if true, this does not square with the Roman sacramentalism and spirituality. Because St Paul’s critique of Corinthian spirituality is premised on the *separation* between the virtue of faith and the virtue of love. This undercuts infusion of theological virtues and by extension, the distinction between initial and final justification.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 2, 2012 at 2:40 pm
Dennis (#833):
Sorry, my question wasn’t clear enough. In the case of the prodigal son, we had a father-son relationship that remained despite the son’s sin.
In the case of a lapsed mortal sinner, the Catholic doctrine is that the justification (and therefore the sonship) is gone.
For this reason, he is outside the boundaries of the kingdom of God. If he still bore God’s family name, he would be saved.
For that reason, there can be no principled difference between a “lapsed sinner” repenting, and an unbeliever coming to faith for the first time. Rescue from hell and kingdom transfer are synonymous.
What am I missing?
Jeff Cagle said,
September 2, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Jason (#831): Well, I obviously think the passage itself favors 5a (that the blind are people who had a true participation in Christ’s salvation but who, due to their unfruitfulness, were finally lost.
OK, but what evidence makes you think that?
After all, we previously agreed that Peter does not explicitly say anything about the fate of the blind. Something in the passage makes you think 5a is the correct reading. What is that something?
Bob said,
September 2, 2012 at 5:52 pm
836 Reed
You’ve seen this before haven’t you?
A CtC associate gives us the Catholic Perspective on the FV.
(Then there’s this referencing a PCA pastor and a PCA professor regarding Images of Jesus. )
Dunno. If FV is kissing cousins of Rome and the P&R will tolerate it, Rome shouldn’t be a problem either. It odes seem to be a bridge too far at least here, while the good ole boy scenario seems to be operating with the FV and the, ahem….
Yet if Romanism can be rebutted and it is a surrogate for, if not an example of FV in full bloom, maybe people can get fired up about actually disciplining the latter, instead of honoring NAPARC’s statements in the breach.
Bob S said,
September 2, 2012 at 5:54 pm
(Then there’s this referencing a PCA pastor and a PCA professor regarding Images of Jesus. )
Bob S said,
September 2, 2012 at 6:09 pm
[Second try]
836 Reed
You’ve seen this before haven’t you?
A CtC associate gives us the Catholic Perspective on the FV.
(Then there’s this referencing a PCA pastor and a PCA professor regarding Images of Jesus.)
Dunno. If FV is kissing cousins of Rome and the P&R will tolerate it, Rome shouldn’t be a problem either. It does seem to be a bridge too far at least here, while maybe the good ole boy scenario seems to be operating with the FV and the, ahem….
Yet if Romanism can be rebutted and it is a surrogate for, if not an example of FV in full bloom, maybe people can get fired up about actually disciplining the latter, instead of honoring NAPARC’s statements in the breach.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 3, 2012 at 12:29 am
Stuart,
I trust that you can’t really think I am “building my theology” about faith and works from this passage. This conversation has been going on for some time, and I have gotten into in-depth discussions here about Gal. 5-6, II Pet. 1, Jas. 2, as well as several places from the gospels. I only brought up I Cor. 13 to show that there Paul is saying something similar about the need to form his faith by love as he and other NT writers have said elsewhere. If I were basing my views on this one verse, I wouldn’t have waited this long to bring it up.
What about being “God’s firstborn son” like Israel was, and then being disinherited? Or being a branch united to the Vine and then being cut off for unfruitfulness and cast into the fire?
Of course not. What it means is what Paul says when he tells the Philippians to work out their salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in them. Or when he tells the Corinthians that he is what he is by the grace of God, but that God’s grace toward him was not in vain since he worked harder than anyone (“but not me, but God’s grace in me”). Or like being a servant given five talents and told to occupy until the master’s return, and then being rewarded with admission into the kingdom for his faithfulness.
Your resistance to all this seems more theological than biblical, since (as you must know) the NT addresses your questions all over the place. The few verses I cited are just a small selection.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 3, 2012 at 12:37 am
Reed,
I do think they make some good points biblically, but as I am sure you’d agree, their attempt to create a hybrid soteriology (between what they see as biblical and what the Westminster Standards teach) ultimately fails. Plus, I think their project betrays confessional Reformed theology and insults the good confessionally- minded ministers in the PCA.
I remember thinking that I had suffered quite a bit of loss by leaving Calvary Chapel and joining the PCA, and when I came across men unwilling to stand up and wholeheartedly affirm the theology that I paid a price to embrace, well, it just really bothered and offended me.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 3, 2012 at 12:43 am
Andrew,
See my comment to Stuart a couple spots up. Like him, I will just choose to believe you don’t really think that I was attempting to “write a treatise on the relationship between faith and works” by citing I Cor. 13.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 3, 2012 at 12:51 am
Jeff,
I wrote, “Well, I obviously think the passage itself favors 5a (that the blind are people who had a true participation in Christ’s salvation but who, due to their unfruitfulness, were finally lost.”
And you asked:
As I have said before, I see our confirming our calling and election (because thereby we gain a rich entrance into the kingdom) as the opposite of the barrenness that the “blind” display in II Pet. 1. Therefore I understand the fate of the blind as the opposite of gaining the kingdom, i.e., as a loss of that kingdom.
Plus, there’s all the other examples I have listed about God’s people having true saving blessings and then losing them ultimately. Israel in the OT, Vine and branches, unfaithful servant, etc.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 3, 2012 at 12:54 am
Everyone,
I may have to split for a while. I am leaving the country on Thursday for 11 days and I have a book deadline looming, so if I disappear for a bit it’s for those reasons.
I just want to say that I really appreciate the opportunity to hash out some of these issues here, as well as your patience with me when I come off as impatient or dismissive, or just as an all-around tool.
Cheers,
Jason
Andrew McCallum said,
September 3, 2012 at 8:06 am
Jason (re: 852),
See my comment to Stuart a couple spots up. Like him, I will just choose to believe you don’t really think that I was attempting to “write a treatise on the relationship between faith and works” by citing I Cor. 13.
Yes, you are right. I certainly don’t think you are trying to create a theology out of one text. But you did ask about that text so we answered you on it.
Not just referencing I Cor. here, but you have answered me a number of times with statements that I don’t see are necessarily in conflict with a Reformed understanding of justification. And then you seem to be reticent to defend a distinctly Roman Catholic system as that is laid out in Trent and elsewhere. So I’m hoping that you will still come back. Not being able to fit all of the biblical texts nicely and cleanly into a Reformed paradigm is still a long way off from what Lane refers to as relying on the “medieval, man-made, labyrinthian system of works” of the RCC. What do you get by replacing the Jewish system of works righteousness with the Medieval Roman Catholic one?
Have a great trip.
Cheers….
Jeff Cagle said,
September 3, 2012 at 10:00 am
Jason (#854):
So in the face of three possible options, your choice of 5a is because … you see it that way? I’m not trying to mock, but to understand why you would choose one over the other.
In the broader picture, our conversation has taken this arc:
* In the parable of the servants and talents, there is an ambiguity: Does the servant represent someone who was justified and then failed to add works, OR does he represent someone who lacked faith to begin with? You prefer the first reading — but why?
* In Galatians, we agree that justification is by “faith working through love.” And we also agree that the only kind of justification that is called by name in that book is the initial kind. You infer that Gal 5.13 and beyond are talking about ongoing justification, but cannot provide a reason for this beyond “faith working through love” and “I warn you that those who do these things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
* In 2 Peter, we are confronted with three possible ways of reading the text. Two of them are perfectly reasonable “parallel structure” readings, and the third is plausible. You prefer one over the others. On what grounds?
What I’m trying to suggest is that in none of these cases did the text drive your convictions. Rather, some kind of underlying ground led you to read each text in “this way, not that way.”
I would like to understand that ground further. And I haven’t forgotten that I owe you a case for imputation.
Have a safe trip!
Grace,
Jeff
Dennis said,
September 3, 2012 at 9:10 pm
Jeff,
In the case of a lapsed mortal sinner, the Catholic doctrine is that the justification (and therefore the sonship) is gone.
No, I don’t think that’s correct. The sonship is still present however, the justification is gone. Once baptized, we become sealed with an indelible mark that cannot be erased by sin. (CCC 1272). We become “adopted sons” and co heirs. If we should sin, we are still sealed by Christ however, we have “squandered our inheritance” like the Prodigal Son and need to return to God.
For this reason, he is outside the boundaries of the kingdom of God. If he still bore God’s family name, he would be saved.
No. A sinner leaves the kingdom of God but still bears the family name like the Prodigal Son.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 12:47 am
Dennis,
Thanks for the reply. I think our discussion here highlights one reason that I am not Catholic (the main reason!), and that is that I see a great tension between what the Catholic church teaches and what Scripture teaches.
This is one instance. As I understand Scripture, to be justified is equivalent to being God’s child and belonging to Christ. The two are synonymous with each other. For example:
You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. – Rom 8.9
For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. — Rom 8.14
We agree that those who are justified have the Spirit; it seems then that we ought also to agree that all those and only those who belong to Christ have the Spirit and are justified. This is the inescapable conclusion of the verses above.
Yet sadly, the Catholic doctrine seems to be otherwise, and creates a category for persons who belong to Christ (in the sense of bearing his name and baptism), yet do not have His Spirit.
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 9:28 am
Jeff,
No problem.
I see a great tension between what the Catholic church teaches and what Scripture teaches.
Yes, I understand that you see a tension but I think it’s because your understanding of Scripture is different from my (and the Church’s) understanding of Scripture.
For example, I think you’re misunderstanding Romans 8. The key verse to Romans 8 is v. 1: “Hence, now there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Which means if one is “in” the Body of Christ, there is no condemnation. What does that mean? I agree it means that you are justified but I think our understanding of being “in” Christ Jesus is different.
To be “in” Christ Jesus means that one is
A. Baptized and
B. Conforming themselves to the will of God.
When we are baptized, we are united to Christ in His death (per Romans 6:3). From there, we are initiated into Christ and we need to develop our relationship with Him. This is similar to a husband and wife on their wedding day. Their relationship isn’t completed on that day, it’s just beginning from that day forward, a couple needs to nurture and foster their relationship and grow in love. So it is with us and God. We need to foster our relationship with God from the day of our Baptism until the day we die.
How do we do that? How do we nurture our relationship with God? Romans 8 explains it’s through “living in the spirit.” We allow the Holy Spirit to dwell in us and lead us. We ask the Holy Spirit for guidance daily. When we wake up, the first words on our lips should be, “Lord, what do you want from me today?…” And then we execute according to God’s plan.
By living a “Life in the Spirit” we will be justified. However, if we choose our will above God’s will. If we reject what the Spirit is asking us and say, “no thanks, MY way is better… “ Then we are living in a spirit of rebellion. We are NOT living a life in the spirit and we lose our justification for we are no longer “In Christ.”
At that point, we need to return to the Body of Christ and ask for forgiveness. We need to acknowledge our sins and enter back into the Body of Christ and continue living a Life in the Spirit for it’s only in Christ that we are saved. Outside of Him, there is no salvation.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 10:09 am
So Dennis, would you agree then that the people you are describing, living in a state of rebellion, are not in Christ (per Catholic theology)?
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 10:42 am
So Dennis, would you agree then that the people you are describing, living in a state of rebellion, are not in Christ (per Catholic theology)?
Jeff, I would agree. A person living in a state of rebellion (i.e. willfully disobeying the will of God) is in mortal sin and not “in Christ” although sealed by the Holy Spirit in Baptism, they are not in His Body.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 11:53 am
OK. And here’s the conflict that I was talking about. On the one hand, these people are marked by baptism as belonging to Christ:
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. — Gal 3.26 – 27.
On the other hand, they are not in Christ.
So instead of two kingdoms, those who belong to Christ and those who do not, we now have three kingdoms: Those who belong to Christ (baptized, state of grace), those who do not (unbaptized, no state of grace), and those who do and do not belong to Christ (baptized, no state of grace).
The contradiction inherent here in having people who simultaneously are in-and-out of Christ’s kingdom seems to me to be very problematic.
Clearly, it doesn’t bother you, so I won’t press the point. But perhaps you can understand my reluctance to accept such a teaching.
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Dennis @ 860,
Dennis, you’re analogy breaks down. When a man and woman are married they are indeed fully married (assuming consummation). Nurturing that relationship does not make them more married or less single. From day one, they are complete “as married” before God and man as if they were married faithfully for forty years. Yes, they learn to love each other more and more and grow more fully into the purpose of marriage. Yet even a violation of that marriage covenant by one or the other doesn’t, in and of itself, negate the marriage, nor end that bond.
Likewise with our union in Christ. We were sealed in Him by the Holy Spirit, “joined to another.” Our sinning doesn’t sever that union, nor remove us from Christ. For the ground or basis of our union in Christ is the provision of his sacrifice for our sins, by which we are justified through simple trust, receiving it as a free gift. He has removed the basis of our guilt through His blood. Thus the exclamation of Paul, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”
We have been united to Christ through faith in His work of redemption and are no longer under law but under grace, joined to another, our Savior. To put it back on us, would make it no longer a gift of grace, but a work of law.
Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned as of grace, but as of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. (Rom. 4:4-5)
Our sin doesn’t sever us from Christ, for that would undermine God’s very purpose of reconciliation, in that it would remove us from the very cure of our disease, Christ crucified:
(2. Cor. 5:17-21)
Be reconciled to God. How? By putting all our trust for removal of sin and the acquiring of righteousness in His Son, who was “made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Our marriage bond to the Lord is based solely on His finished work of God’s reconciliation on our behalf, by His blood. He chose us. He sought us. He paid the price for our redemption. He called us. And by His Spirit effected faith and repentance in us, joining us to Himself. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” i.e. do not devise a system that annuls God’s word of reconciliation.
Jack
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Jack,
It’s even more than this. In Catholic theology, marriage is for life — even if divorce happens in the eyes of the law (CCC 1614 – 1615).
So interestingly, marriage is *more* permanent than the believer’s union with Christ, and thus breaks free from being a picture of that union.
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 4, 2012 at 2:04 pm
Jeff,
Come on, Jeff. Did I answer you by saying “My view is correct because I see it that way?” I pointed to internal factors within II Peter, as well as to passages outside the book, as reasons for thinking that “the blind” in II Pet. 1 are not just people who’ll get fewer jewels in their crowns than others.
You then present an “arc” of our conversation in which you act as if our discussion just started, and as if I have not tried to present any evidence for anything I believe beyond my own personal preference for my own views.
I can’t go back and retread the entire debate, as I am sure you can understand.
TurretinFan said,
September 4, 2012 at 2:13 pm
JJS:
But your appeal to internal factors within 2 Peter was hollow and was already addressed above.
-TurretinFan
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 2:42 pm
Jeff,
It’s even more than this. In Catholic theology, marriage is for life — even if divorce happens in the eyes of the law (CCC 1614 – 1615).
Indeed! This is just one more example of the inconsistencies that exist in RC theology.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 3:08 pm
Jason,
Sorry to irritate you. I’ve been trying to follow the argument amidst a flurry of threads, while you’ve been trying to express it and keep it straight amidst the same flurry.
For convenience, here’s the index:
* Your exposition of Peter starts in #660.
* I began asking this question, “How do we know what happens to the blind?” in #672.
* You begin to answer this question in #682/684. You adduce these points:
— “I find nothing in the actual text that gives that indication. His description of the unfruitful as “blind” sounds more like the kind of thing that would be said of someone in danger of eternal judgment rather than one merely liable to losing out on a few rewards in heaven.”
— “The surrounding context also makes it clear …”
— “His language of a “rich entrance into the kingdom” strongly evokes Jesus’ language from the parable of the talents…”
— “Well, my argument is that Peter has expressly said (echoing James) that our faith must be “added to” in order to result in our final salvation….”
In #729, you mention to Jack, “I know I’m being a total stickler for the actual words the biblical writers use, but the idea that the fruitfulness Peter calls for is merely evidentiary of the faith that really saves his readers is not what he says. He says that they must supplement their faith with spiritual fruit, for “in this way” they will receive their eternal inheritance.”
In #734, you note: if they fail to exhibit this fruit, they will not be richly provided an entrance into the kingdom (this last one is not explicit but implicit).
You write to TF #738, “Peter’s language in chs. 1-2 does not allow for his warning to be merely about being paltrily saved rather than richly saved. He wraps up his thought in 2:9 where he talks about “keeping the wicked under punishment until the day of judgment.””
In #767, 786, 801, 831 we agreed to 4 theses and three hypothetical options for the blind.
I can see that I was not giving full consideration to three points:
* You see surrounding context, and 2 Pet 2.9 in particular, as driving the reading. This is procedurally strong.
* You connect 2 Pet to the language of the servant in Jesus’ parable. This probably won’t work, since we don’t agree on the nature of that servant. If we assume he was justified, then 2 Pet is parallel — but then, we don’t need 2 Pet to prove the argument. If we do not assume he was justified, then 2 Pet is not parallel.
* You connect 2 Pet to the “fruitful branches” of John 15. This opens up a new front in the argument, and I would launch an opening salvo in this direction: John 15 and the Fruitless Branches.
I need to give the context argument fuller consideration. I would encourage us both to continue to be total sticklers for the actual words used.
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Jack,
Dennis, you’re analogy breaks down. When a man and woman are married they are indeed fully married (assuming consummation). Nurturing that relationship does not make them more married or less single. From day one, they are complete “as married” before God and man as if they were married faithfully for forty years. Yes, they learn to love each other more and more and grow more fully into the purpose of marriage. Yet even a violation of that marriage covenant by one or the other doesn’t, in and of itself, negate the marriage, nor end that bond.
I don’t think the analogy breaks down. If a man is unfaithful to his wife, the relationship is damaged…actually, two relationships are damaged. The relationship between the man and the woman and the relationship between the man and God. There is now a wedge between them that must be repaired and the only way that relationship can be repaired is for the husband to seek forgiveness from both God and his wife. If he doesn’t, the union is there but it is damaged. When we sin against God, it damages our relationship with Him so that we should seek forgiveness from Him. There is a sin that is egregious enough that it is considered “deadly” (1 John 5:16-17) which can damage our relationship to the point that it is “deadly”.
Our sinning doesn’t sever that union, nor remove us from Christ.
I think it does. Again, 1 John 1:16-17 talks about a “deadly” sin. Furthermore, Scripture reminds us to “live by the spirit” and that “works of the flesh are obvious” and Paul warns us that if we do these things (sin) , we “will not inherit the kingdom of God” (Galatians 5:18-21) That sounds pretty straightforward to me. Sin and you will not inherit the kingdom of God.
For the ground or basis of our union in Christ is the provision of his sacrifice for our sins, by which we are justified through simple trust, receiving it as a free gift. He has removed the basis of our guilt through His blood. Thus the exclamation of Paul, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus.”
OK, this is where we differ. For a Catholic, our union in Christ is grounded in the Sacraments. in Baptism, we are united to Christ at His death. (Romans 6:3). In the Eucharist, His sacrifice is made present so we can eat of His flesh and drink of His blood. Through Baptism and the Eucharist, we “partake in the Divine Nature.” As a matter of fact, the only real difference between Catholics and Protestants is the Sacraments. In the Sacraments, we receive actual grace from God.
We have been united to Christ through faith in His work of redemption and are no longer under law but under grace, joined to another, our Savior. To put it back on us, would make it no longer a gift of grace, but a work of law.
Everything that we do is a gift of grace. The air that we breathe is a gift of grace. When we receive the sacraments, we receive grace not because of our work but from the love of God. The sacraments are all tied to Christ’s work on Calvary. It’s His work that saves us. We partake in the sacraments out of love for Him but It’s His work that saves us.
Our sin doesn’t sever us from Christ, for that would undermine God’s very purpose of reconciliation, in that it would remove us from the very cure of our disease, Christ crucified:
The penalty for sin is death. When Adam sinned, he was cast out of the Garden and God forbid him from eating from the Tree of Life (per Genesis 3). Christ’s death pays the penalty for all of mankind’s sins. When we live in Him, He pays the penalty of our sin and we live forever in Him. Outside of Him, we are dead to sin. In Him, we live forever as He has paid the penalty and we will rise with Him in glory. Living in sin, we are like Adam. Christ calls us to be obedient to Him in all things and to turn away from sin. Living in Christ, we live forever. Living in sin, we die.
Be reconciled to God. How? By putting all our trust for removal of sin and the acquiring of righteousness in His Son, who was “made to be sin on our behalf; that we might become the righteousness of God in him.” Our marriage bond to the Lord is based solely on His finished work of God’s reconciliation on our behalf, by His blood. He chose us. He sought us. He paid the price for our redemption. He called us. And by His Spirit effected faith and repentance in us, joining us to Himself. “What God has joined together, let no man put asunder,” i.e. do not devise a system that annuls God’s word of reconciliation.
As Catholics, we are reconciled to God in His Church through Baptism. Our unity in Christ is through the Sacraments. I know we differ on this but this highlights a huge (most significant) difference between Catholics and Protestants.
Daniel Steinke said,
September 4, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Jeff & Dennis
I have been trying to get an answer to this problem that I can’t seem to get past in who the RCC would consider to be “in Christ”. Now that this thread has gone in this direction, I would like to hear your opinions. The RCC appears to openly claim that all are born again, regenerated, or in Christ through water baptism, as cited in the RC Catechism 1213:
“Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit, and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”“
Likewise, the RCC claims that we (Protestants) separated brethren are also, brought into Christ through Baptism as well, a quote from Dominus Iesus
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic , are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church . Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.
So, in order to “know” God, or better put be “known by God” (Galatians 4:9 But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage) is equated with Baptism.
Now here comes the conundrum I can’t seem to get by.
According to Matthew 7:21-23 Jesus said, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity
My question, who are the “them” in verse 23? Jesus states he never knew them, and obviously he knows everyone in the generic sense,. He is clearly refering to knowing them in a salvific sense, or those who are sealed by his Holy Spirit, or his children, etc. It can’t possibly be anyone who was baptized since the RCC claims that Baptism is the way someone becomes “sons of God”, and likewise of Protestants who are also baptized, since they too are “by Baptism, incorporated in Christ”
Verse 22 says that they have prophesied, cast out devils, and have done many wonderful works, in his name – a clear indication, they saw themselves as “Christians”
So how do you reconcile the statement that Christ says he “never” knew them with basically all “Christians” are in Christ through Baptism and are known of Him with the identity of the “them” in verse 23?
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 4:44 pm
Jason, having considered context, I believe the key is going to be found (whether Prot or Cath) in Peter’s conclusion:
Therefore, dear friends, since you have been forewarned, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of the lawless and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen. — 2 Pet 3.17,18.
I think we can agree that this passage explains the purpose for 1.5 – 11, and also for the exposition in ch. 2. Specifically, “grow in grace and knowledge” refers back to 1.5 – 11, while “the error of the lawless” has ch. 2 in view.
So now the question is how to understand “so that you may not … fall from your secure position.” or “your own steadfastness” (ἵνα μὴ … ἐκπέσητε τοῦ ἰδίου στηριγμοῦ) And if we grasp that, then I think we understand the fate of the blind.
Sadly, στηριγμοῦ occurs once in the NT, so I don’t have any particular insight about its meaning.
If “secure position”, then we have a pretty puzzle: Is Peter’s accent on falling or on security?
If “your own steadfastness”, then we have a different puzzle: why ἐκπέσητε rather than πέσητε? Out of what, grammatically, are we falling?
These questions are above my Greek paygrade. It seems to be a “hard” question given the diversity of translations:
“lose your own stability” — ESV
“fall from your secure position” — NIV
“fall from your own steadfastness” — NASB, ASV, KJV
So here again, what kind of fall are we talking about? A fall away from salvation entirely? A fall into a state requiring the discipline of the Lord?
The frustrating thing is that Peter only speaks of the positive “richly entering the kingdom of heaven” and does not speak of “What happens if not?”
You cite 2.9, but this is an referential splinching error. Peter nowhere indicates that he is concerned that any of his readers are actually false teachers, who are clearly the ones in view in 2.9.
You also make an argument from parallel structure: Since the entrance into the eternal kingdom is abundantly supplied by increasing in various qualities, then it should follow that the opposite (not increasing) should lead to the opposite (not entering).
I love good parallel structure arguments, so you have my attention.
BUT
Again, there are two ways to make the structure parallel. Being a stickler about the words means that the opposite is “Not receiving a rich welcome.”
Which could mean no welcome at all (hypothetically) or a welcome of a non-rich variety (hypothetically).
We definitely know that the latter happens (1 Cor 3). We do not know whether the former can happen. You take the parable to indicate “yes”, but that rests on the assumption that this fearful and lazy servant was actually justified at some point in the past.
So that’s where I’m at. 2 Peter is suggestive, but only if we choose to read it “this way and not that.”
You probably perceive this as being blind to the obvious, but I think of it as trying to avoid jumping to conclusions.
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 4:55 pm
Jeff,
So instead of two kingdoms, those who belong to Christ and those who do not, we now have three kingdoms: Those who belong to Christ (baptized, state of grace), those who do not (unbaptized, no state of grace), and those who do and do not belong to Christ (baptized, no state of grace).
I’m not familiar with a lot of the Protestant terminology so, no, I’m not familiar with two kingdoms theology.
As far as I know, there are two alternatives. Inside the Body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and outside the Body of Christ. Those “In Christ” are justified and saved and those outside the body are doomed to eternal damnation.
I don’t know who is inside or outside the Body nor do I want to venture to guess. The only soul I should be worried about is my own (although I should be tirelessly working for the salvation of all people with whom I come in contact).
stuart said,
September 4, 2012 at 5:38 pm
Jason,
I trust that you can’t really think I am “building my theology” about faith and works from this passage.
No, I don’t believe you are building your whole theology on 1 Corinthians 13. I apologize if my comment came across that way. What I was trying to say (poorly, it seems) is that if we’re not gaining ground with each other over a passage like James 2 where there are some legitimate questions on how to understand his language about faith, works, and justification, then I don’t think we’re going to get any farther by bringing up a passage that seems to be more questionable than the first in terms of building a case. In my opinion, you have a much better chance of winning over folks like me with your arguments from Galatians or 2 Peter than from parables or from what appear to be exaggerated questions. I realize you’re trying to show that the scope of Scripture demonstrate your position by bringing up passages like 1 Corinthians 13 or the parables of Jesus, but the paradigm battle will probably not be won with such passages.
This conversation has been going on for some time, and I have gotten into in-depth discussions here about Gal. 5-6, II Pet. 1, Jas. 2, as well as several places from the gospels.
Yes, that’s true. But I have engaged with you concerning only one of those passages . . . James 2. And concerning that passage I am still unconvinced that James is saying anything other than this: saving faith always manifests itself in works. Faith without works is dead faith. If something is dead, it does not work. Therefore, any faith that doesn’t produce works is dead faith and not saving faith. I would believe this is James’ point even if I punted on imputation and agreed with the so-called “agape paradigm” because after wrestling with this passage for a very long time, I think this is the correct understanding of the passage (and I know a RC can think about James that way because as I alluded to earlier Luke Timothy Johnson puts forward a very similar view on James 2 that I myself hold). Maybe that means I’m dense in your estimation, and maybe I am, but I understand the text the way I understand it.
For better or worse, I’m pulling out of this conversation. My plate is so overflowing it took me almost three days just to find the time type this comment. I’ll leave the discussion to guys who can manage their time better. :-)
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 5:45 pm
Dennis @ 870,
You changing definitions. You wrote @ 870:
Yet before @ 860 you entire point was to analogize our union with Christ to that of marriage and you wrote:
Which is it? Is the relationship severed, i.e the believer no longer in Christ? or is the relationship damaged? Sinning against my wife doesn’t pull me out of the marriage into a state of singleness. Nor does sinning pull me out of Christ into a state of reprobation.
You now add in the sin referred to in 1 John (I think you meant chapter 5). This isn’t what you were commenting on before. Suffice to say, I took your earlier comment to be referring to what John calls “sin not unto death.”
Whereas Rome accuses Protestants of only having faith with no provision for works (a false charge), in the above you seem to be promoting an emphasis of Baptism and the Eucharist that is efficacious even if devoid of faith. Yes, I know the RCC understanding (I was baptized Catholic; my mother was Catholic her entire life). I’m just saying it is a bit ironic. And I would disagree, there are more to the differences between R and P than our understanding of the sacraments.
Your next paragraph only restates your previous contention, which is not supported by Scripture. I understand this is standard RC dogma, but, suffice to say, your statement…
contradicts the Word of God:
“And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins… but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us to sit with him in the heavenly places, in Christ Jesus… for by grace have ye been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God…” (Eph. 2)
It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23), not of ourselves. Yet we are still sinners who do sin. God would oppose Himself and His own Gospel were He to take back the free gift that He gave to us through faith, only to restore it to us based on works of ourselves.
I realize we are, in a sense, talking past each other. My contention is that Rome has added to the revealed Word of God with its numerous traditions and works, clouding the eyes of its people from the free grace of God that comes through simple faith in Christ Jesus.
Jack
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Jack,
Which is it? Is the relationship severed, i.e the believer no longer in Christ? or is the relationship damaged? Sinning against my wife doesn’t pull me out of the marriage into a state of singleness. Nor does sinning pull me out of Christ into a state of reprobation.
I will agree that the analogy is not perfect. In marriage, the relationship is damaged whereas with Christ, the relationship is severed with mortal sin. My initial point wasn’t really to talk about how the relationship can be damaged or severed but rather that the relationship albeit not changed (which to your point once married, you’re married) evolves over a long period of time. I can honestly say that I know my wife better now after nine plus years of marriage then I did when we were first married. Likewise, my relationship with God has evolved over my lifetime as well which is more my point. That being said, being unfaifthful in a marriage does have a negative effect where we do need to seek forgiveness from a spouse and from God.
there are more to the differences between R and P than our understanding of the sacraments.
I agree…(e.g. authority, sola scriptura, sola fide, the Pope, etc.) That being said, my opinion—and this is truly my opinion—the key difference between Catholics and Protestants lies in the Sacraments. Without the Sacraments, the Catholic Church would be just another denomination. It’s the Sacraments that differentiates a Catholic from a Protestant. It’s the Sacraments that make the Church.
you seem to be promoting an emphasis of Baptism and the Eucharist that is efficacious even if devoid of faith.
No! We must have faith. Faith is essential in everything we do. We must, however, be also obedient to what Christ commanded us. Out of love for Christ, we must be Baptized and we must eat of His Body and drink of His Blood for eternal life.
It is a free gift (Rom. 6:23), not of ourselves. Yet we are still sinners who do sin. God would oppose Himself and His own Gospel were He to take back the free gift that He gave to us through faith, only to restore it to us based on works of ourselves.
The “free gift” is “eternal life in Christ Jesus” per Romans 6:23 which is exactly my point. Romans 6 explains that we were once “slaves of sin” but now we are freed from sin and are “slaves of God” (v. 22). This is exactly what I’m explaining. We no longer sin but rather seek God’s will. We are a “slave to God” and thus a “slave of righteousness” which means that God is our master and we do what He wants. If we follow what God wants, we overcome sin.
I realize we are, in a sense, talking past each other.
Yes. We are talking past each other. I know I won’t convince you of my points and don’t need to continue hammering my points. I am genuinely interested in learning more about the Protestant mind set. Just for my own knowledge and understanding.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Dennis,
Thanks. Actually, it is St. Augustine who develops the two-kingdoms theology in the particular way I articulated it above. He, of course, is building off of Paul in Colossians 1.13-14: [the Father] has delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
Reformed and Lutheran “two-kingdoms” is actually unrelated to what I was saying.
As far as I know, there are two alternatives. Inside the Body of Christ (i.e. the Church) and outside the Body of Christ. Those “In Christ” are justified and saved and those outside the body are doomed to eternal damnation.
Yes, I would agree with this, though I would not understand “the Church” in the same way as you do.
If I may push a bit further: given the Catholic understanding of “the Church”, then why are you hesitant to say who is and who is not saved?
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 7:23 pm
Dennis,
1. No disagreement with your first paragraph.
2. No real disagreement with your second paragraph.
3. Regarding your third paragraph, I wan’t actually claiming that you though faith unnecessary. Rather, how you didn’t mention it when it is indeed essential.
4. Now paragraph four presents some questions. You wrote:
We no longer sin but rather seek God’s will. But we do sin, right?
“If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)
and you wrote:
If we follow what God wants, we overcome sin.
“For whatsoever is begotten of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that hath overcome the world, even our faith. And who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?” (1 John 5:4-5)
I would suggest that faith in Christ alone is entirely the hinge upon which the right administration of the sacraments hangs and what effects forgiveness of sins for believers. Even as Jesus answered to the question, “What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?” – “This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent.”
My purpose in the above and previous comments is the hope that you may have pause, to consider the possibility that certain aspects of the Roman Catholic tradition do not add up when put under the light of the words of Scripture.
best regards,
Jack
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Correction @ 877;
3. Regarding your third paragraph, I wasn’t actually claiming that you thought faith unnecessary. Rather, how you didn’t mention it when it is indeed essential.
Nothing like typing too quickly and then posting to humble a man…
;)
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Jack,
But we do sin, right?
Well, as for me, I sin every day. The reason why is because I do not follow God’s will perfectly. However, God has given us opportunities to seek His grace through the sacraments of Confession and the Eucharist. Regularly receiving the Eucharist and going to Confession allows me to receive God’s grace and seek His forgiveness.
My purpose in the above and previous comments is the hope that you may have pause, to consider the possibility that certain aspects of the Roman Catholic tradition do not add up when put under the light of the words of Scripture.
Yeah…that’s not happening. Some of the key points of 1 John are to avoid sin (1 John 2:1) and to follow His will (1 John 2:3) and above all to love God. I am pretty familiar with Scripture and I’m pretty sure you won’t be able to give me something that will give me pause about my Catholic faith.
I am enjoying the dialogue though. I think it’s giving us a better understanding of each other’s faith. Peace.
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Jeff,
If I may push a bit further: given the Catholic understanding of “the Church”, then why are you hesitant to say who is and who is not saved?
Because determining who is saved and not saved is reserved for judgment by God (and not me). I can’t see or judge a person’s heart and have the hope that God will save as many people as possible. Moreover, I should approach all people as though they are Christ (meaning treating them with respect and dignity) as I may not recognize Him when He comes again in glory. (As the Pharisees failed to recognize Him when He came the first time).
Jeff Cagle said,
September 4, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Dennis, I can appreciate that position. But how is that consistent with saying that Those “In Christ” are justified and saved and those outside the body are doomed to eternal damnation?
Are you suggesting there might be a third group of people?
Dennis said,
September 4, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Jeff,
Christ has the power to save whomever He pleases and offer grace outside of the sacraments. Salvation would still be “In Christ” but not necessarily through the traditional baptism (like the thief at Calvary). So, my hope would be that if a person were not baptized that Christ may somehow appear to them at the moment before death and offer them salvation. Still “In Christ” just not the traditional Catholic way.
This is traditional Catholic thought. We call it a “Baptism of Desire.”. This isn’t outside the box of Catholic theology.
Alright, time for me to go to bed.
jsm52 said,
September 4, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Dennis,
Yes, certainly we are to avoid sin. Yet, as you affirm, we do sin. Myself, I do try to be earnest and make it my duty to confess my sins every day and receive the Eucharist every Lord’s day. But, what if I miss a sin that I should confess, or miss a Sunday in which I should and would receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood? Is there no forgiveness in Christ that I may avail myself of? Upon what, or better whom, do I depend for for atonement and, ultimately, my salvation? My best obedience out of love?
My point is simply, that our Lord never (nor does Scripture) intended that the ordinances of the Church should become the mediator, nor the means or hope of cleansing, between us and our only Mediator and Savior, Christ Jesus. The Church’s discipline exists to bring us to Him, and not to itself as a prescribed way station and necessary measure of our obedience along the way. For we are yet sinners who sin, and are in need of a Savior whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.
blessings,
Jack
Brad B said,
September 5, 2012 at 1:15 am
Listened to this two times, once last night and the second time tonight. Link is to White Horse Inn blog where one can access the #1117 recording.
I have to say that ever since Bryan Cross’ #9, it’s like I’ve had a rock in my shoe, because in his concluding paragraphs he makes an attempt to rescue grace from the jaws of victory by converting [what seems to me to be a hijacking of law/gospel distinction couched in different language] the power of the gospel into lawkeeping and calling it “faith working through love”/”faith informed by agape”. I’m sure he doesn’t realize it, and I hope everyone will take the 38 minutes to hear Horton and recognize we’re all subject to rob grace of it’s power whenever we try to live without the gospel–for justification and santification. [Pauls point in Gal 2.]
He’s{Horton} not even addressing the Roman Church at all, but I cant help from hearing him answering so many points that’ve been construed by the Roman apologists in this thread, just as he elaborates on law / gospel distinction. From minute 20 or so, to the end there are particularly poignant points made and especially around minute 34.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 5, 2012 at 8:13 am
Dennis, I appreciate #883. It seems to me that the end-result of the “baptism of desire” teaching would, or could, be to affirm that anyone who has (genuine) faith is justified by that faith … :)
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:20 am
Jack,
But, what if I miss a sin that I should confess, or miss a Sunday in which I should and would receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s body and blood? Is there no forgiveness in Christ that I may avail myself of? Upon what, or better whom, do I depend for for atonement and, ultimately, my salvation? My best obedience out of love?
I don’t think anyone can recall all the sins. The point isn’t to confess all sins. It’s to confess all sins you can remember and to return to Christ with a contrite heart. Confession consists of four elements. 1. Confession, 2. Contrition, 3. Absolution, 4. Penance. It’s the contrite heart (#2) that God wants. We’re saved not through those four acts though. We’re saved through His grace which is given freely. We do the four elements out of love for God and yes, it’s out of the “best obedience out of love.”
My point is simply, that our Lord never (nor does Scripture) intended that the ordinances of the Church should become the mediator, nor the means or hope of cleansing, between us and our only Mediator and Savior, Christ Jesus. The Church’s discipline exists to bring us to Him, and not to itself as a prescribed way station and necessary measure of our obedience along the way. For we are yet sinners who sin, and are in need of a Savior whose yoke is easy and whose burden is light.
And my point is simply that Christ is the Church. He is in the center and you come to the Church because the Church is Christ. I am obedient to the Church because at the center of the Church is Christ in His sacraments. If He weren’t there, I wouldn’t be doing them.
TurretinFan said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:25 am
JJS wrote:
a) Paul’s not talking about saving faith at all. He’s talking about what Berkhof calls “miraculous faith.”
b) Surely JJS is not taking the position that Paul’s, “it profits me nothing,” is to be understood absolutely, such that enormous miraculous faith has absolutely no value. It has great value as to working miracles. It’s lack of value is elsewhere.
c) But, further to (b), that lack of value is not in the area of justification. That is to say, the “profits nothing” reference is not in relation to the question of justification. Instead, it’s in relation to the question of Christian maturity (see 1 Corinthians 13:11).
d) In context, the miraculous faith is mentioned as amongst the spiritual gifts that Corinthians desired (see the final verse of chapter twelve, and the first two verses of 13). Paul’s point is that none of these spiritual gifts compares in value to love in terms of the Christian walk.
e) Thus, 1 Corinthians 13 is more similar to the discussion in 2 Peter 1 than to James’ discussion of dead faith.
f) Indeed, the miraculous gifts were evidence of justification of the Gentiles by faith alone, apart from the sacrament of circumcision, according to the Apostles (see Acts 15). So, Paul is dealing with people who are apparently justified, not with those who are wondering how to be justified.
Someone above made similar points in response to JJS and he responded: “I only brought up I Cor. 13 to show that there Paul is saying something similar about the need to form his faith by love as he and other NT writers have said elsewhere.”
Unfortunately, this seems to be characteristic of the shallow exegesis we get. 1 Corinthians 13 says nothing about a need to “form his faith by love,” and actually nowhere does Paul talk about forming faith by love. In fact, quite the opposite, in Galatians 5:6, Paul states: “For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.” There, faith is the root and the works of love are the fruit.
The Latin Scriptures there do not say, “fides caritate formata” (faith formed by love) but rather “fides quae per caritatem operatur” (faith which works by love).
JJS further wrote:
a) “heinous, habitual sin” is neither the traditional nor the modern definition of “mortal sin” within Roman theology. So, to the extent that this is the “pretty clear” teaching of Scripture, Scripture and Roman theology at odds. The traditional teaching was the mortal sins are certain major sins, such as adultery or murder, which do not have to be habitual to be mortal. The modern teaching imposes further requirements: “1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.'”
b) Moreover, JJS has things on their head when it comes to the question of what is the “pretty clear” teaching of the NT. The NT describes the spiritual life that we receive from Christ as “eternal.” Jesus could not be more explicit:
John 10:28-29
And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father’s hand.
Not only is the life called “eternal” but it is stated that they will “never perish” and no one will pluck them out of his hand, with the assurance being God’s supreme omnipotence.
Moreover, Paul makes the same point theologically:
Romans 8:30
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
The English and Greek tell the same story here: the same “whom” he predestinated he called. The same “whom” he called he justified. The same “whom” he justified he will glorify – indeed it is so certain that the glorification is spoken of as though it had already occurred.
Naturally, we are aware of other passages that are sometimes brought forth to try to argue for an opposing view. But when Scripture is allowed to be its own interpreter, those passages readily harmonize with the clear statements on perseverance (as we have already seen above with respect to 2 Peter 1).
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:32 am
Dennis 887: And my point is simply that Christ is the Church. He is in the center and you come to the Church because the Church is Christ.
This is nonsense, especially as you define “the Church” as “the Roman Catholic Church with its hierarchy and sacraments”. This is full of ontological baggage which is thoroughly unbiblical, but it’s also shown to be nonsense by the activities of that hierarchy throughout history.
jsm52 said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:36 am
Dennis,
And this, IMO, is the central error of Rome: you wrote-
I’m curious…
Jason Stellman, do you believe the above statement?
Jack
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 5, 2012 at 1:01 pm
It would have to be more clearly explained, but essentially yes. I’m sure you know the verses that connect Christ and his church in an organic way, so I’ll not bother to cite them. Plus, I’m watching my kids all day….
isaiah. said,
September 5, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Jack (890):
By this we can imply that rejection of Luther’s justification sola fide theology is not the Catholic Church’s central error? Or if they are both (somehow) the twin central errors, how do the two inform each other?
Blessings in Christ,
ih.
jsm52 said,
September 5, 2012 at 1:31 pm
isaiah.said,
Because Rome sees itself as, believes itself to be, Christ on earth – it puts itself above Scripture. From that error flows the rejection of justification by faith alone, which Luther called the “first and chief article” of the Church.
Jack
Jason J. Stellman said,
September 5, 2012 at 1:55 pm
The rejection of JBFA flows not from Rome’s exaltation of itself above Scripture, but from the fact that the Scripture nowhere teaches it, but rather, explicitly denies it.
After all, do the EO deny JBFA because of Rome’s exaltation of itself?
jsm52 said,
September 5, 2012 at 2:13 pm
Jason,
Well, I think that there are more than a few who would debate that conclusion.
From what I understand, the EOC, like Rome, rejects sola Scriptura and believes that the Church is the ultimate authority by which true doctrine is known.
Jack
TurretinFan said,
September 5, 2012 at 2:18 pm
“The rejection of JBFA flows not from Rome’s exaltation of itself above Scripture, but from the fact that the Scripture nowhere teaches it, but rather, explicitly denies it. After all, do the EO deny JBFA because of Rome’s exaltation of itself?”
a) The “EO” have a variety of beliefs, without any dogmatic definition on the question. It’s not answered by any of the canons of the 7ECs.
b) EO theologians may reject it for a variety of reasons. However, the cross-pollination of ideas between Rome and EO is not out of the question.
c) The Judaizers rejected it for reasons that are not Rome’s exaltation of itself (they predated Rome’s self-exaltation). So, of course, we are not suggesting that Rome’s error is uniquely Roman.
d) The idea that Scripture “explicitly denies” JBFA is the sort of claim that any seminary student in his final year should be able to debunk. Most of the folks here can, I trust, debunk it in their sleep. Making such an assertion may work to people unfamiliar with exegesis – but to folks like us, it just makes you look the part of a dunce (and we know you’re not a dunce).
-TurretinFan
Zrim said,
September 5, 2012 at 5:00 pm
I don’t think anyone can recall all the sins. The point isn’t to confess all sins. It’s to confess all sins you can remember and to return to Christ with a contrite heart.
Dennis, does this mean that if sin escapes a sinner’s memory he is no longer accountable for it, but only accountable for the sins he can recall? It sounds like it. But this seems more list-y than agape-ish, more mechanical than organic. For even when an authentically contrite sinner thinks he’s got all his sins counted (one by one), he can’t help but be struck by Jesus’ own agape interpretation in his summary of the law, which raises the bar of what it means to be holy beyond ticking off a list of sins. It’s actually a more organic problem. The mechanical plodding you seem to be calling “confession” seems more in line with the list paradigm. It could be that Protestantism’s avoidance of the system of penance flows out of a more agape-like grasp of human sin.
And what to do about the abiding sin that still clings even in the midst of contrition? Or are you saying that to be human east of Eden isn’t to be compromised, or as some have put it at once sinner and saint? But even when Protestants partake of the table we are aware that our sin clings before, during, and after. That’s actually why we attend. There’s no escaping it, which is why we need its regular power to edify and strengthen (as opposed to fooling ourselves into thinking it takes anything away).
isaiah. said,
September 5, 2012 at 5:10 pm
TurretinFan, et al. (896):
That “Scripture ‘explicitly denies’ JBFA”, and the fact that certain seminarians should be able to debunk the same (with enough Reformed pre-suppositions stuffed into their brain, mind), is what we’ve been spilling ink about these past weeks in this very thread.
If something is so easily debunked or so explicitly denied by the Scriptures which are so very clear for peoples in understanding these apparently heaven-or-hell matters, then we should merely be quoting Scriptures at one another and nothing else (or simply an admonition to go read your Bible cover to cover until you come back with the correct view).
For my part, I’m tired of the arrogant attitude that says “If you’d only just read your Bible, you’d see that x = y and therefore z is wrong.”
But, perhaps that has all been said before.
ih.
TurretinFan said,
September 5, 2012 at 5:55 pm
Isaiah:
“TurretinFan, et al. (896): That “Scripture ‘explicitly denies’ JBFA”, and the fact that certain seminarians should be able to debunk the same (with enough Reformed pre-suppositions stuffed into their brain, mind),”
a) Most of the seminarians who have taken a course that explains exegesis should be able to debunk that kind of facile claim.
b) It’s not about “Reformed pre-suppositions,” it’s about being able to read carefully to discern the author’s intended meaning. There’s nothing distinctively “Reformed” about that way of reading.
“… is what we’ve been spilling ink about these past weeks in this very thread.”
I invite you to point out where in this thread such a claim was first made. The only time I can see (before the comment to which I responded) was at #734.
“If something is so easily debunked or so explicitly denied by the Scriptures which are so very clear for peoples in understanding these apparently heaven-or-hell matters, then we should merely be quoting Scriptures at one another and nothing else (or simply an admonition to go read your Bible cover to cover until you come back with the correct view).”
This is a great example of the non sequitur fallacy. Just because a particular argument is easily debunked, does not mean or suggest that there is no value in fallible aids to understanding the infallible Scriptures.
The specific argument was this:
“But of course, James explicitly teaches that one can have faith, but if he has not works of love as well, he will not be justified (sounds a bit like, “supplement your faith with love” and “faith working through love,” innit?)”
But this argument fails because it employs the word-concept fallacy. The term “justify” has a range of meaning. In James it is not referring to how one is justified in the eyes of God, but rather how one is justified in the eyes of men.
James 2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
That contrasts with the sense that Paul uses:
Galatians 3:11
But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.
Thus, James’ comment can be reconciled with Paul’s comment:
Romans 4:5
But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
This is not a particularly difficult exegetical point.
“For my part, I’m tired of the arrogant attitude that says “If you’d only just read your Bible, you’d see that x = y and therefore z is wrong.” But, perhaps that has all been said before. ih.”
Not everything is clear just from reading the Bible. Nevertheless, some things are clear just from reading the Bible, if you can set aside your traditions. Moreover, many things are clear to those who God illuminates, and many things are obscure to those whom he does not. If the Scriptures seem obscure and ambiguous to you, ask God for mercy and wisdom to understand them.
-TurretinFan
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 6:03 pm
Zrim,
does this mean that if sin escapes a sinner’s memory he is no longer accountable for it
If a sin escapes a person’s memory, then the person—with the contrite heart–will be forgiven of that sin. If a person recalls the sin afterward and it’s bothering them, they can confess it in their next confession if it’s troubling them. If the person is withholding a sin that he or she committed in the past out of pride and not telling the priest, that sin would not be forgiven for they are actively not confessing a sin that should be confessed and would be held accountable.
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/09/quaeritur-how-to-confess-past-forgotten-sins/
But this seems more list-y than agape-ish, more mechanical than organic.
From an outside perspective, it could seem that way but that is not the case. If confessing sins were *easy*, the confessionals would be lined out the door filled with Catholics who are “checking the box.” That is not the case. Sadly, people don’t go to confession and the likely reason why is because it’s hard. Their pride gets in the way of going to confession. People in general like to present themselves as “perfect.”. It’s hard to sit down in front of a person whom you know and tell them all your sins. Telling them where you failed. All the times you “stumbled” along the way. Going to confession develops humility and confers grace upon a person.
It could be that Protestantism’s avoidance of the system of penance flows out of a more agape-like grasp of human sin.
I guess the question for me is how does the Protestant know he’s received the grace from God to be forgiven of a particular sin? If there is no system to forgive sins (Jesus specifically gives authority to the Apostles to forgive and retain sins—John 20:23) then when does a Protestant have his sins forgiven? Or are they not forgiven and the Protestant assumes they are? If that’s the case, what does Jesus mean by John 20:23?
jsm52 said,
September 5, 2012 at 6:24 pm
How do I know God forgives my sins? He is faithful and just.
Hebrews 4:16
Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 John 2; 1-2
But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. 2 He is the propitiation for our sins…
Matthew 11: 28-30
Come to me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
jsm52 said,
September 5, 2012 at 6:28 pm
I should have included these verses in the Hebrews 4 quote above:
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Jack,
I agree with all the Bible verses. Very specifically, Jesus gave the Apostles the power to forgive sins. The mechanism to forgive sins in the Catholic Church is through confession. When (per 1 John 1:9) does a Protestant confess the sins so that God forgives–through the authority He gave the Apostles when He sent them in John 20:23? I am sincerely curious.
TurretinFan said,
September 5, 2012 at 8:49 pm
Dennis: The Apostles are gone to be with the Lord, except the son of perdition. Even if the power that they had was something similar to the power that every priest of the Roman communion claims to have, what makes you think Christ gave that power to those priests? -TurretinFan
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 9:24 pm
TF,
Before I respond to that question, I do want to hear your interpretation of John 20:23. Please explain how a Protestant is to understand it.
TurretinFan said,
September 5, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Dennis:
A Protestant should try to understand it as it was intended to be understood. In context, John 20:23 is part of this:
John 20:21-23
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
Thus, in context, this power that the apostles had is connected with Christ personally breathing on them. In other words, it is a uniquely apostolic gift. Jesus sent Paul after the others, but Jesus has not sent anyone else in that way since. No one else has this particular power.
There may be some open questions about what exactly this power is. Is it the power of church discipline? I suppose some would treat it that way. My own view (which I believe would be shared by William Webster) is that this relates to their unique prophetic gift as witnesses of Christ and messengers of the Word. It was a gift of proclaiming the gospel – which is the forgiveness of sins.
Ultimately, I think most people would view it as equivalent to the “binding” and “loosing” mentioned in Matthew 16 and again in Matthew 18. Whether that is specifically relating to church discipline, or whether that refers to the proclamation of the gospel is perhaps a less clear point.
What is clear, however, is that John 20:23 is in the context of a specifically apostolic appointment. Thus, before one attempts to apply it more broadly, one needs to have some warrant for doing so, for not all are apostles.
-TurretinFan
Zrim said,
September 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Dennis, it could be self-righteousness that keeps many from the sacrament of penance. But it could also be a sense that Jesus’ yoke, like he said, is easy, and the hardness of so much labor and introspection works against it.
But my main point had to do with the totality of depravity and the pervasiveness of human sin, which Protestantism seems to grasp in ways that Catholicism, for all its agape monopolizing, ironically seems to miss. The sacrament of penance, as you describe it, in the face of such pervasive sin seems not too unlike holding back a tidal wave with a broom. The only way that would make sense is to vastly underestimate the power of nature, and in a similar way to vastly underestimate the depths of sin. This isn’t at all to undermine the place of confession, rather it is wonder how anyone could think it has the power to do what is Christ’s alone to effect. One explanation is a low view of sin.
When you ask how a Protestant knows his sins are forgiven, I have to wonder what you think Jesus meant when he said “It is finished.” With all this talk about needing more sacrifice and penance it sure seems like the forgiveness of sins isn’t really finished. It seems like Jesus merely got something started, that the cross is more of a kick off than an accomplishment.
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:17 pm
TF,
Thank you. I appreciate the response. My thoughts obviously differ from yours but that’s okay with me. I’ll not share my view more as I think you already know it unless you are genuinely interested as I am not looking to argue in this combox.
Now, to answer your question (and I know you won’t agree with me–but am genuinely not interested in arguing), I believe the authority lies specifically in John 20:22 when Jesus breathed on the Apostles.
When Jesus breathed on them, He said, “Receive the Holy Spirit…” At that point, these 11 men received the Holy Spirit. It was to them and only them. This gift of the Holy Spirit was only given to these 11 men; however, these men transferred the Holy Spirit to others through the laying on of hands (Acts 8:17) and transferred their authority to others to assist them through the laying on of hands (Acts 6:5-6).
This laying on of hands to transfer the Holy Spirit went from Apostles to elders (Acts 13:3) and from elder (bishop) to elder (1 Timothy 4:14). This transfer of the Holy Spirit has gone in an unbroken line from John 20 until today when bishops lay hands on other bishops and priests in both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church. Tied to that laying of hands is the power to forgive sins per John 20:23.
Another reason why is because I have faith that it’s true and trust in the Church.
Dennis said,
September 5, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Zrim,
Interesting as I’ve never thought of Catholics having a “low view of sin!” Understanding sin allows man to understand his need for Christ. To be aware of your sins makes a person cling to Christ even closer because we know how weak we are without Him. You’re probably right that the average Catholic has a “self righteousness” that keeps him from the confessional.
I am not the person to ask to compare a Protestant’s grasp of sin vs. a Catholic’s as I’ve only known the Catholic perspective.
The sacrament of penance, as you describe it, in the face of such pervasive sin seems not too unlike holding back a tidal wave with a broom.
Well, it’s really not. There’s only ten commandments so, you can summarize a confession by listing off which of the ten commandments you’ve broken. Before every confession a good examination of conscience should be done which is a very simple prayer of “Come Holy Spirit and reveal to me when I’ve sinned…” It’s pretty amazing what comes to mind shortly after that.
I have to wonder what you think Jesus meant when he said “It is finished.”
Well, that’s a pretty deep question for a Catholic. The short answer is that when Christ says, “It is finished.” It’s Him signifying that He has abolished sin and death forever.
The long answer goes deeper. For a Catholic, everything comes back to Calvary. The Church is born at Calvary. It flows out from His side. When we are baptized, we are brought back to that moment at His death when blood and water flow from His side and we are washed and sanctified with it per Ephesians 5. In Baptism, we are baptized into His death. Our sins are nailed to His cross and we enter into His body at the cross per Colossians 2:11-14.
The celebration of the Eucharist isn’t just a reenactment of the Last Supper. It’s a re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice at Calvary. At the Eucharistic celebration, His sacrifice is made present so that it’s not multiple celebrations of the Eucharist throughout time. It’s one Eucharist. One Communion for all eternity around the world. When we see His body lifted up in the appearance of bread, what we are witnessing is His Body at Calvary.
So, to get back to your point, Christ came here to abolish sin. As a Catholic, if we sin, we come back to Christ (at Calvary) in His Church because Christ has the power to forgive sins and we seek forgiveness from His Church. As Protestants, when you sin, you believe your sins were forgiven at that one moment in time when He said, “It is finished…” Is that correct?
Bob S said,
September 6, 2012 at 1:26 am
720 “stickler for words“.
Hmmm.
Like “imputation” found in Romans numerous times?
Or “infusion”, never mind “pope”, found numerous times in 1 or 2 Peter?
Wait a minute . . . .
IOW this is all a big windup to the finale where an all out assault will be made on Just.ByFaithAlone in Romans, right?
No?
No?
What gives?
Oh, that’s right. Being a real stickler for words would be begging the question.
Got it.
Man, I’m started to feel like Charlie Brown again. Just when I think I can trust Lucy to hold the football,
jsm52 said,
September 6, 2012 at 12:59 pm
Dennis,
I hope to address your question regarding John 20:23 soon. Been a bit busy.
Jack
isaiah. said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:32 am
TurretinFan (899):
Overly vague, though I think I get your point. If, that is, you are meaning to say that “the clear things are clear to those who are not trying to shoehorn their theology into the text” and, per WCF.1.6:
(Never mind whether one has properly deduced the consequences according to the truth, and how one knows when one has done soe.)
What troubles me is the fact that the immediate meaning of James 2:24 is simply that “We are justified by works, and not by faith only,” but JBFA-informed theology (which Luther explicitly defined, but St. Paul never did, unless of course you are going with Luther’s pre-eminent German translation) would have it otherwise. And how? Well, by giving different meanings to “justification”, “faith” and “works”. I guess Bill Clinton, too, cleverly accused the prosecution with “word-concept fallacy” back when he challenged the meaning of “is”. But I digress.
My question is, how do we know the true meaning of any word in the Bible and whether the meaning is constant or hopelessly dependent on a particular context, or even one’s personal theology persuasions? Who gets to decide those meanings?
All I know is that St. James and St. Paul used the same Greek word, and if you insist they have used the exact same word for two very different meanings (lousy Greek language anyway!), I’d like to know what theology has said about that matter prior to the Reformation, and whether there are other possible meanings for δικαιόω. And if there are, we really should think up a vastly different English word to use in those cases where it doesn’t indicate the kind of justification that Calvinists mean in reference to eternal salvation and extra nos imputation, otherwise the mass of humanity will be constantly scandalized when reading through their Bibles to see that James seems to contradict Calvin, sorry, I mean St. Paul.
All the best,
ih.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 7:39 am
Isaiah: What troubles me is the fact that the immediate meaning of James 2:24 is simply that “We are justified by works, and not by faith only,” … All I know is that St. James and St. Paul used the same Greek word, and if you insist they have used the exact same word for two very different meanings …
Actually, one doesn’t need to go there.
There is a feature about the text of James that is crucial to the understanding of it, IMHO. Namely, James messes with the timeline of events in Genesis.
He attributes the “fulfillment” of Genesis 15 to the sacrifice of Gen 21. But those events were separated by a good fifteen years or so.
How is it, then, that Abraham, as James says, “believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness”? At what time did that crediting take place? We already know, because Paul is definite about this: it took place on that starry night in Gen 15.
Why then does James attribute that verse to the sacrifice event?
Is it because, as RCs have it, that Abe had an initial justification and then a subsequent one? That would be two kinds of justifications. But James actually doesn’t leave room for this, because he’s point directly to Gen 15.
Is it, as some Protestants have it, that Abe was being justified before men? Which men — Isaac? That seems odd.
How about this: that Abraham’s justification in Gen 15 was accompanied by a giving of the Spirit, so that the good works God had prepared for him to do (like the sacrifice) were the fulfillment of the justification already given.
I think that’s the most natural way to understand James 2 without positing two kinds of justifications and without glossing over the fact that Abraham was justified in Gen 15 and not later.
More here.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 9:14 am
Jeff, (re: #913)
Except, according to David Gadbois in “Debating Galatians on Justification:”
In which case James certainly does “leave room for” Gen 22 being an increase in justification; Gen 15:6 was itself an increase in justification. The perfecting of Abraham’s faith through works with which “faith was working” (Jm 2:22), and his increase in justification through such works (Jm 2:21), shows the crucial difference between works done in living faith, and the dead “works of the law” to which St. Paul refers in Galatians and Romans. The statement in Gen 15:6 is fulfilled once again in Gen 22, according to James, precisely because the event described in Gen 22 is not a dead work, but a work done in that same living faith expressed by Abraham’s act of faith in Gen 15, the living faith without which no one was justified. Whenever living faith is at work, it justifies — i.e. increases justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:00 am
Jeff,
You wrote at #913 “… that Abraham’s justification in Gen 15 was accompanied by a giving of the Spirit, so that the good works God had prepared for him to do (like the sacrifice) were the fulfillment of the justification already given.”
The statement that “good works fulfilled the justification already given” does not make sense from the Protestant perspective. Perhaps it’s more compatible with the Roman paradigm. But as Protestants, we are not supposed to attribute good works to our justification (before God) at all. Justification is about “be-ing” — not “do-ing.” This is why Protestant says that saving faith is “passive” or “receptive.” Furthermore, good works “were the fulfilment of the justification already given” implies (a kind of) synergism. In other words, monergism is undercut.
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:14 am
Jason re#831 wrote:
“And further, how can this talk of fruitfulness not remind us of Jesus’ Vine and branches analogy? There it is perfectly clear that there are some branches “in the Vine” who fail to bear fruit and are cast into the fire.”
The Vine and branch analogy is a classic example of monergism in salvation. *Fruitful-ness* does not come from the branch but the Vine (tree). In other words, what causes *and* ensures the branch to bear fruit is the tree. There is no “co-operation” between the Vine and branch in the bearing of fruit. The branch is as much dependent on the Vine to be and stay as branch as the fruits are.
This is why the words of Jesus were “inserted” in what is now known as verse 8 (of John 15): “Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.”
To abide in Christ is not a demand or command — that is Law. It is promise — at least to those who approach John 15 from the “in Christ” paradigm. To abide in Christ is simply — to “be” (“be-ing”). The branch can no more abide or fall away from the Vine “by itself” but is wholly dependent for its cause and effect on the Vine for “for without me ye can do *nothing*” (verse 5).
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:40 am
On 2 Peter 1, where the St Peter the chief of apostles is talking about giving diligence to make your calling and election sure, it is clear that he is talking about assurance. For earlier on, he declared how the Christians he was writing (and preaching to) were given “exceeding great and precious promises.” Promise implies assurance.
This is why St Peter also wrote that “[b]ut he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath *forgotten* that he was purged from his old sins.” The Christian so described cannot have or at least claim to have assurance of salvation.
The preceding verse, i.e. verse 8 states “For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the *knowledge* of our Lord Jesus Christ.” The term knowledge of course refers back to promise in verse 4 and before that verse 2 and 3 where the term, knowledge is again used. Knowledge and promise are inter-connected/ inter-related simply because both are constituted by words which here are simply the divine words of the Divine Word (to paraphrase St Maximus: “The many logoi are the One Logos”).
To have the promise is to have “all things/ everything that pertain unto life and godliness” (verse 30 — meaning total and complete salvation. This does not sit well with the Roman paradigm where the distinction between initial and final justification applies.
Furthermore, if one wants to read the Roman paradigm onto 2 Peter 1, one could just as well read St Peter to be talking about *mortal* as well venial sins. IOW, there is *nothing* in the passage to suggest or prefer the one over the other. That being the case, the Roman paradigm cannot go any further than verse 9 for one who is in a state of mortal sin is not in position to make his calling and election sure.
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:50 am
Bryan (re #914),
“In which case James certainly does “leave room for” Gen 22 being an increase in justification; Gen 15:6 was itself an increase in justification. The perfecting of Abraham’s faith through works with which “faith was working” (Jm 2:22), and his increase in justification through such works (Jm 2:21), shows the crucial difference between works done in living faith, and the dead “works of the law” to which St. Paul refers in Galatians and Romans.”
Except that James preached unequivocally that “the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God” (James 2:23).
Scripture was *fulfilled* — which *saith*? Law or Gospel here, or both? Abraham believed God *and* it was *imputed* unto him for *righteousness.* IOW, Scripture *declares* (or pronounced) righteous in the sight of God “for the sake of” faith and faith alone. At least in this verse and context. In any case, it is not compatible with the Roman paradigm where faith is just a virtue amongst the other supernatural virtues.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:01 am
Jason L. (re: #918)
Only if one presupposes that the faith in view here is not faith informed by agape, i.e. is not living faith. So, no, the verse as interpreted through the presuppositions of the Protestant paradigm is not compatible with the Roman paradigm. But, once again, that simply begs the question, by using the assumptions of one paradigm to reject the other. It doesn’t get us anywhere in terms of determining which paradigm is better.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:13 am
Bryan (re #914),
“The statement in Gen 15:6 is fulfilled once again in Gen 22, according to James, precisely because the event described in Gen 22 is not a dead work, but a work done in that same living faith expressed by Abraham’s act of faith in Gen 15, the living faith without which no one was justified. Whenever living faith is at work, it justifies — i.e. increases justification.”
When James asked rhetorically “Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?” (James 2:21-22)
James was reiterating how living or true faith issues in obedience and good works. IOW, where there is living or true faith, there is good works (performed in obedience to the will of God).
Faith causes good works and neither vice-versa nor in conjunction but the latter always follows or comes after the former. This is why James said that “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.”
James wasn’t theologising; he was preaching about good works as evidence of Abraham’s faith (not faithfulness) in God. James was perhaps so eager to drum home his point to the Jewish converts who probably irritated him with their “old ways” that he placed the *conclusion* first *before* the *premise.* Well, actually the premise here is more of a *minor* premise. The *major* premise and the conclusion are one and the same …
After all the major premise is prior both in logic and time. That is Abraham trusted in God’s faithfulness and for this he was counted righteous which is precisely the same point that James was trying to get his audience — do you not have the faith OF Jesus Christ (verse 1)?
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:17 am
James 2:5 says:
“Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in ***faith***, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?”
If good works justify before God, then the poor – compared to the rich and privileged (whom James was mainly addressing) – would not be in a position to attain that increase in justification (if at all according to the Roman paradigm) or even be have their faith “made perfect.” Yes, justification by faith alone, contrary to Roman caricature, has social depth and breadth. Justification and justice cannot be separated anymore can faith and good works.
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:44 am
“… essence of righteousness, which is that to which the law points as its telos.”
St Paul, our most Catholic theologian declares in Romans 10 that
3 “For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.”
4″For Christ is the END of the law for righteousness to every one that *believeth*.”
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:52 am
St Paul doesn’t speak of the “divine essence” but divine *Person* (which is none other than the Crucified One) and that this God is the end of the Law not only as the telos but end as in finis. IOW, the law ends or case or terminates in Christ. This is why the same St Paul the Apostle can declare simply that in Christ we are FREE from the Law.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:59 am
Jason L. (re: #921)
Because in the Catholic paradigm, the only possible good works (done in agape) require the possession of large amounts of material stuff. And there are no Catholic saints whose lives involved perpetual [financial] poverty. (/irony)
I just had a conversation last night with my daughter (who is a paraplegic, and now almost a quadriplegic), in which we were talking about all the different ways persons in her condition can give the love of Christ to others. None of those ways involved material stuff.
Straw men by Protestants only help the Catholic cause, in the long run.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 11:59 am
Bryan, I happen to disagree with David G on this point. The real question here is, At what moment in time did Abraham become God’s friend? Scripture — James 2! — unambiguously ties justification with “becoming God’s friend” (or “being at peace with God”, Rom 5).
James stipulates that this happens in Gen 15, and I’m good with that.
Bryan, do *you* believe that Abraham received “initial justification” in Genesis 15?
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Jeff (re: #927),
My answer to that question is laid out in comment #140 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread on CTC.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Jason: The statement that “good works fulfilled the justification already given” does not make sense from the Protestant perspective. Perhaps it’s more compatible with the Roman paradigm. But as Protestants, we are not supposed to attribute good works to our justification (before God) at all.
I think there’s a misunderstanding. The phrase “fulfilling our justification” presupposes that justification has been accomplished, and that the works are a result of it, per Eph. 2.8 – 10. So as you say, we do not attribute good works to our justification at all; rather, we make our justification strictly logically prior to our good works.
The word “fulfilled” itself is a reference to James 2:
21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works faith was made perfect?
23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness”; and he was called the friend of God.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Bryan: “Yes” or “no” could have been shorter. :)
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Bryan (re#926),
“I just had a conversation last night with my daughter (who is a paraplegic, and now almost a quadriplegic), in which we were talking about all the different ways persons in her condition can give the love of Christ to others. None of those ways involved material stuff.
Straw men by Protestants only help the Catholic cause, in the long run.”
Yes, Bryan, but who did James actually intend to address in his epistle?
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:15 pm
IOW, did James had mind a generic category of persons (i.e. poor & rich or in today’s jargon, petite bourgeoisie, proletariat, upper class, middle class, etc.) or specifically the rich in the churches, especially the Jewish converts of the day? If the latter, it’d be hardpressed to see any compatibility of the with Roman paradigm – which indeed emphasises its relevance to justification coram deo as a general theological category.
Jason Loh said,
September 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm
I’m glad though, Bryan, that your daughter’s been baptised.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 2:34 pm
Andrew B. (re: #922)
In Catholic doctrine growing in justification does not mean moving from a condition of being partly justified to a condition of being more-but-still-only-partly justified. I have explained this in comment #5 of the “Imputation and Paradigms” thread.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Bryan, your post doesn’t really answer the question. At what moment in time did Abraham “become God’s friend”?
johnbugay said,
September 7, 2012 at 3:42 pm
Bryan 932:
This is just a silly concept. It is piling unscriptural principle upon unscriptural principle. How is this just not simply some form of special pleading for the Roman position?
David Gadbois said,
September 7, 2012 at 4:06 pm
Bryan said In which case James certainly does “leave room for” Gen 22 being an increase in justification; Gen 15:6 was itself an increase in justification.
Jeff Cagle said Bryan, I happen to disagree with David G on this point.
I don’t see people in this thread consulting commentaries to work through these exegetical issues.
I am away from my home library right now, but a pretty good online resource can be found here.
For instance, both Calvin and Luther held that Abraham was justified before Genesis 15. Indeed, for Calvin this was just further evidence that Rome was wrong, and that even one such as Abraham, who had practiced faithful obedience for many years before Genesis 15, was still said to be righteous on account of his faith, not his obedience/works:
Needless to say, Paul does not speak of “increasing” justification. It is not present either in the language or by logical implication. The matter, for him, is binary – either one is declared righteous or not. One is either at peace with God or not.
Nor does it make theological sense to speak of increasing justification. When God judges us, there is only one standard, God’s Law. If one obeys it perfectly, he is righteous, a sheep, and will go on to eternal reward. If one does not, then he is is a unrighteous, a goat. Bryan Cross’ “expanding cup” doesn’t exist, one either fulfills the demands of God’s Law or does not.
Regarding James, as responsible exegetes we cannot assume that his use of “justify” is the same as Paul’s, even though the same Greek word is being used. Only an examination of the immediate context can determine where the usage falls in a word’s semantic range. Lane and TFan have already covered this regarding James 2, so I won’t rehash this point. “Vindicate/justified before men” is a perfectly acceptable exegetical option given the semantic range of the Greek verb.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 4:23 pm
David (re: #935)
Well, here’s the dilemma for the Reformed position. If Abraham had faith prior to Gen 15, and faith alone justifies, then Abraham was already justified prior to Gen 15, in which case either he did something [between the end of Gen 14 and the beginning of 15] to lose his justification in order to be justified again in Gen 15, or this justification in Gen 15 was an increase in justification. So either justification can be lost, or justification can be increased (or both).
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
jsm52 said,
September 7, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Then he believed in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness.
Calvin, in part, on Gen. 15:6-
David Gadbois said,
September 7, 2012 at 5:14 pm
Bryan said …Abraham was already justified prior to Gen 15, in which case either he did something [between the end of Gen 14 and the beginning of 15] to lose his justification in order to be justified again in Gen 15, or this justification in Gen 15 was an increase in justification. So either justification can be lost, or justification can be increased (or both).
Abraham was indeed justified prior to Gen 15, but there is no indication that he did anything to lose said justification. That Abraham “believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” at this juncture does not entail that he was being re-justified, but rather that his ongoing status as justified was instrumentally effected by his ongoing faith. Commentators have noted that the verbal form here implies continuing repeated acts of faith (“he kept on believing”).
I understand that some might be confused, seeing as how Protestants emphasize justification as a punctiliar (one-time) act at the point of conversion, but this does not preclude the concept of justification as an ongoing status as well. God declared me righteous many years ago, when I first believed. He declares me righteous today, too! And the means by which that happens has not shifted- it was and still is my passive/receptive faith in Christ, receiving His perfect righteousness. This does not make justification into an incomplete process or one that can be “increased”, it is ongoing.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 7, 2012 at 5:54 pm
David G, thanks for the resource. I’ll chew on it.
Bryan Cross said,
September 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
David, (re: #938)
So, in your opinion, the most “natural” reading (to use the hermeneutical criterion so frequently appealed to here) of
is “Abram’s ongoing status as justified was instrumentally effected by his ongoing faith.”
Besides the problem of showing that “the most natural reading” is not a helpful criterion, because it is a wax nose, the notion that God continually repeats a once-and-for-all act of justifying a person (by double imputation), based on faith in the individual, is no less problematic. It either reduces the initial act of justification to one that does not include all future sins, and does not include the perpetual, once-and-for-all imputation of the righteousness of Christ, or it entangles God in superfluous redundancy, having Him at every moment re-impute the same sins to Christ and re-impute Christ’s righteousness to the believer. If justification were in fact a once-and-for-all double-imputation, then there could be no such thing as continually effecting one’s status as justified. As soon as the once-and-for-all divine act monergistically effected that status, there would be no room left for anything else subsequently to “effect” this status. To say that post-justificatory faith keeps effecting one’s justification status is for this reason to deny that the initial divine act of justification is once-and-for-all. And that’s why the notion that Abram’s ongoing status as justified was instrumentally effected by his ongoing faith is problematic given a Reformed conception of the once-and-for-all character of justification.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
johnbugay said,
September 7, 2012 at 6:22 pm
David G 935:
This is one of the most sensible suggestions in this thread. Bryan talks about “Tradition vs the Lexicon”, but commentaries don’t simply analyze the grammar of a particular passage. These are often the true “collected wisdom of the ages”, the genuine “tradition” — Bryan should realize that Roman Catholic “Tradition” often contains nothing resembling real “tradition” — but rather, is the “interpretation” of the “Magisterium du jour”.
johnbugay said,
September 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm
Bryan 936:
From Currid:
Your “dilemma” is nonsensical.
jsm52 said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Dennis @ 903,
Regarding John 20:23 –
How I know my sins are forgiven without confession to a priest. We need to let the text of Scripture guide us. My response is long for a comment post, so here it is at my bog:
http://theworldsruined.blogspot.com/2012/09/how-are-sins-forgiven.html
Cheers and all that…
Jack
jsm52 said,
September 7, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Edit correction:
My response is too long for a comment post, so here it is at my blog…
See, I fall short of the mark. I need a Savior who, in His obedience, has supplied the perfection required for me!
Jeff Cagle said,
September 8, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Bryan (#936): …in which case either he did something [between the end of Gen 14 and the beginning of 15] to lose his justification in order to be justified again in Gen 15, or this justification in Gen 15 was an increase in justification.
OR, Gen 15 was a continuation of his justification. That’s David G’s argument, via Calvin et al. While I’m not on board yet, I concede that this is a possibility.
You agree, do you not, that Jesus sits at the right hand of the Father to continually intercede for us (Heb 7.25)?
That being the case, it is not particularly difficult to see this progression:
Justification occurs, making us children of God and transferring us from the kingdom of darkness.
The effect of justification continues as Jesus continues to intercede for us.
Justification bears its final fruit at the judgment, when the works of believers are judged and found, in Christ, to be worthy of reward a la WCoF 16.6.
There is no “increase” in view here, but a continuation of status.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 8, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Bryan,
There are at least two difficulties with the “increasing justification” view, with more in the wings.
(1) You appear to be boxed into a corner with regard to “perfection.”
On the one hand, you assert that believers are made “100% perfectly ontologically righteous” by their justification.
On the other, you admit that justified believers continue to have a “concupiscence”, a nature that tends towards sin.
So where does this concupiscence reside? If in the believer, then there is a part of the believer that is not ontologically righteous, and the 100% claim is false. If not in the believer, then on what planet? Do Christians consist of two persons?
On still the other hand, you hold that the Christian must exercise his free will to decide whether to “manfully resist” his concupiscence or to give in to it.
Is this free will purified? If so, then why is there a struggle? If not, then in what sense is the righteousness “perfect”? The free will looks to be yet a third person who does the deciding between the other two persons.
From the outside — and I admit that I am on the outside — it seems like you are using “100%” and “perfect” to mean “less than 100%” and “imperfect.”
(2) I understand that the “increasing cup” analogy is just an analogy. But it seems to me that when you speak of “increasing justification” or “increasing participation in the life of Christ”, what you are really talking about is an increasing ability to say No to the sin nature.
And if so, then we have to admit that this is a movement from the imperfect to the more perfect.
Jason Loh said,
September 9, 2012 at 9:55 am
Bryan (re#940),
I don’t presume to speak on behalf of David, but I believe that he would agree to my Lutheran response, at least to a certain extent, to what must be – for me at least – one of your most strongest critiques of the doctrine of imputed justification.
The double imputation via what Luther called the “joyous exchange” is eschatological, not ontological. Your criticism about the superluous and redundant nature of God’s act of repeating imputation of Christ’s righteousness and the Christian’s sins is sustained only if justification is conceived as purely forensic (or legal for standard Protestant orthodoxy) — i.e. pure verdict which renders the acquited the same person as before.
But justification is the re-creative act of God by which He called the world into existence from nothing (ex nihilo). Thus, the justified person is the New Adam (in Christ) who is no longer the Old Adam (in Adam).
IOW, as long as the Old Adam exists, the Old Adam must destroyed only to be re-created anew — death and resurrection continues on this side of the eschaton. Each time the Word is proclaimed (for you in the here and now, in the living present, in the time and space of this old world of sin and bondage and opposition), the new world breaks-in, the New Adam is re-created and by faith, the Christian perceives the past and future as the present — indeed in the present tense.
Darlene said,
September 11, 2012 at 3:48 pm
I haven’t read through all the comments yet (what an overwhelming task it was up to almost 300!!!), but it seems this business of defining justification among the competing faith traditions here becomes quite like an exercise of scrutinizing, scrutinizing, and more scrutinizing – to the point where the point is lost, at least on me.
Being an Orthodox Christian {as in Eastern :-)}, I suppose I really don’t have a dog in this fight. However, my observation would be that Protestantism places its authority in a text while Rome places it in a man. I realize such a statement is a reduction to its simplest form — similar to those elementary exercises of fractions – yet isn’t that what Sola Scriptura & Papal Infallibility actually boil down to in the end?
A KISS answer would be sufficient; you know, keep it simple ;-). None of that highfalutin philosophical jargon. I look forward to an answer, if anyone is coming here to comment at this juncture.
paigebritton said,
September 12, 2012 at 7:43 am
Hi, Darlene —
I’m impressed you made it to 300! :)
I think you’ve got a bead on the authority difference, although both traditions would probably insist that the authority they submit to is really located in God, not in the text or the man per se. For Protestants the text is the ultimate and final verbal revelation that we have from God; for the RCC, God continues to speak authoritatively through the Magisterium to both interpret and add to the biblical text.
You can see that these conversations, then, must always go in search of reasons to believe or refute the other guy’s perception of reality. Did God leave us with [only] a book, or with a book plus a person to speak for him? Our answers here will shape our expectations of what we ought to do in order to best understand the revelation we’ve been given.
And what is “revelational reality” for the EOC?
pax,
Paige
Jason Loh said,
September 12, 2012 at 9:44 am
Darlene (re #948),
You wrote:
“However, my observation would be that Protestantism places its authority in a text while Rome places it in a man. I realize such a statement is a reduction to its simplest form — similar to those elementary exercises of fractions – yet isn’t that what Sola Scriptura & Papal Infallibility actually boil down to in the end?”
The authority so derived in Protestantism is not hierarchical in nature, but christological (“the Word made flesh”). Scripture is authoritative because of what it does to the hearer in the preaching. When Law and Gospel — the proper distinction of the Word — is preached, the sinner is set *free* from death, bondage and sin. This much we know from Our Lord’s proclamation in Luke 4 where He claimed to be prophesied One in isaiah 61:
“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.”
In other words, the authority is that of Scripture as the living voice of God — interpreting the sinner, and not the other way round. Scripture interprets itself in the distinction between Law and Gospel. This is simply to say that Scripture as text drives to Scripture as proclamation. Both cannot be separated but true to their christological character communicate their “attributes” (or rather properties) to each other. Scripture Scripture as text communicates its efficacy to the Scripture as proclamation whilst Scripture as proclamation communicates its voice to Scripture as text. — all the while both of which maintained their divine-human integrity.
Jason Loh said,
September 12, 2012 at 9:57 am
This is why sola scriptura and sola fide cannot be separated – both are co-relates. IOW, sola scriptura presupposes and implies sola fide as much as vice-versa. And both presuppose and imply scripture as both text and proclamation. Seen in this light, Tradition is nothing else but the passing on (paradosis) of the proclamation of the Word in its oral and sacramental forms and also in the form of the liturgy.
Seen in this light, the Apostles’ Creed, for example, is a creedal response to sola scriptura. “I believe …” is a response to the Word of God (both text & proclamation).
Jason Loh said,
September 12, 2012 at 10:16 am
Jesus is first proclaimed as Sacramentum and not only as Exemplum. IOW, Jesus preached first and foremost to be received by sinners and only then to imitated by Christians — synergy or co-operation in salvation reverses the sequence and undermine Jesus as Saviour in Whom the Person is never, even in thought, separated from His Work. The Person is the Work; the Work is the Person.
Separation between Person and Work results when the sequence is reversed. IOW, Jesus in His Person is not Someone whom we imitate so that only then can we experience His Work of salvation. There is then a distance or gap not only between His Person and Work but also between Him and the Christian — as one reflecting the other. But by coming down to earth, He has done all to overcome all distance. Salvation or deification is not, therefore, going up towards the Goal but is the Goal’s movement towards *you*.
This separation also practically and pradoxically results in the confusion or mixing between the two in the life of the Christian — between “to be” and “to do.” To “be” does not come about from to “do.” We do not become more holy through ascetic practices. But to “be” is freedom and it is free and unconditional — IOW, sheer gift. This is grace, sola gratia.
Grace does not enable the Christian to climb Jacob’s ladder but is the New Adam resurrected out of the death of the Old Adam — born again, to be reborn into *this* world of the old creation (which exists for the time being). To be a Christian is to be human — to live by faith alone, that is to trust in the Creator Whose Word is in things. And in so doing, the Christian as human fulfils the two tables of the Law.
Fr. Bryan said,
September 12, 2012 at 11:18 am
Paigebritton – You said, “for the RCC, God continues to speak authoritatively through the Magisterium to both interpret and add to the biblical text.”
How, in your opinion, does the Magisterium add to the biblical text?
paigebritton said,
September 12, 2012 at 12:40 pm
Fr. Bryan —
Maybe that was a Protestantism, and not exactly fair. I think I remember reading that it’s not strictly new revelation that comes from the Magisterium, but interpretation and clarification of both Scripture and Tradition. Still, to us P’s it appears to be addition (in a structural sense) to the biblical text to appeal to Tradition…and if RCC councils denote doctrines that previously had no official notice, that sure seems like addition in a chronological sense. Not exactly new revelation if it’s just being “discovered” in the Tradition — yet the difference I noted between what’s possible in a Protestant vs. a RC reality still stands, because of that RC claim that a special charism of infallibility is still hanging around on planet earth.
pax,
Paige B.
Fr. Bryan said,
September 12, 2012 at 1:47 pm
I can understand that. Here is how I describe it when I teach on such matters. I will say that revelation (The Word of God) is God’s perfect self communication. It is God speaking to us perfectly. However, perfect speaking is worthless if the listener is hard of hearing, which we are. In order for us to hear the word of God perfectly God needs to repair our hearing, which I’m sure you’ll agree with.
However the difference between Catholics and Protestants is not that God has opened the ears of the Church to hear the word of God but how he has done this. As a Catholic, I believe that he has used the system of leadership he himself set up to do this and that this system of leadership involves the Apostles and their successors.
Through this lens, the documents of Vatican II (or any official magisterial teaching) can be seen as the Fruit of the Church pondering the word of God in her heart and hearing the voice of God accurately and responding to the Holy Spirit’s invitation to proclaim the truth of the Gospel to the World in which we live.
Now, you likely reject this, but I hope it at least clarifies the difference between Scripture and Magisterial teaching as Catholics understand it.
johnbugay said,
September 12, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Paige: it’s important to keep in mind that “Tradition” (capital “T”) is not the same as “tradition” (lower-case “t”)
“Tradition” and Scripture and Magisterium are all, on the surface, placed at the same level. But “Tradition” and Scripture are both “divinely inspired”, and further, “Tradition”, not being “tradition”, is really just some form of Magisterial pronouncement. For example, it’s a tradition that there’s a procession of priest and altar servers going into the Mass. They’ve been doing that from Pagan times (picked up a pagan practice and then continued to do it year after year).
However, it’s “Tradition” that Mary was conceived immaculately, and that she was assumed into Heaven. But it’s not “Tradition” because it was “tradition” (and bad “tradition” to begin with — the origins of both are spurious). These are “Tradition” because of pronouncements made in 1854 and 1950.
So, while the “divine revelation” that you and I would recognize as Scripture has ceased, the body of “divinely-inspired” materials can and does in practice continue to grow as the “system of authority” continues to make pronouncements that are considered “Tradition”.
So when you say “add to”, you are, essentially, correct.
johnbugay said,
September 12, 2012 at 9:39 pm
Fr Bryan 955:
How do you account for something like this?
This isn’t the only case in which a mistranslation gets made into dogma.
Dennis said,
September 12, 2012 at 10:16 pm
John,
Regarding #957, your argument goes under the assumption that McGrath is correct and Augustine is wrong. So, it all depends on whom you take as your authority. You implicitly trust McGrath more than Augustine. I disagree. As a matter of fact, I think most people would trust Augustine much more than they would trust McGrath.
jsm52 said,
September 12, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Johnbugay,
Your words:
Indeed and Amen…
– just an observer…
johnbugay said,
September 13, 2012 at 4:16 am
Dennis 958:
Dennis, your appeal to authority is very revealing.
There’s no assumption at all, in the whole piece. We know that words have actual meanings, and we know what those meanings are, and that Augustine didn’t now Hebrew. We know where his understanding of iustitificare came from, and how, precisely, things went wrong. There’s not an assumption in the whole place.
Dennis said,
September 13, 2012 at 1:38 pm
John,
your appeal to authority is very revealing.
What I’m saying is we all have an authority. Mine is the Church who has decided on this. Yours is your understanding of McGrath. I think your reading of McGrath is biased on your understanding of Scripture and your disposition on the Catholic Church.
johnbugay said,
September 13, 2012 at 5:39 pm
Dennis 961, thanks for sharing, really. You have provided a perfect illustration.
Dennis said,
September 13, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Daniel Steinke @871…
I’ve been meaning to get to your comment but have not had time or been sidetracked.
So how do you reconcile the statement that Christ says he “never” knew them with basically all “Christians” are in Christ through Baptism and are known of Him with the identity of the “them” in verse 23?
Well, obviously, as you pointed out, God knows everyone. But I think He means something more in v. 23. He wants to “know” us intimately. God wants an intimate relationship with all people. He wants to “Know” us in the Biblical sense. He wants us to love Him in a way that a spouse loves her husband (per Ephesians 5). He wants us to be His friend.
Although Baptism is important, what is as important is to be in friendship with Christ. Jesus tells us very specifically in John that if you love Him, you will keep His commandments and then He will call you “friend.” People can call themselves “Christians” but if they are not truly doing His will, they are not really Christian. V21 explains that it only the ones who do the will of the Father in heaven will enter into the Kingdom. So, if you call Jesus, “Lord” and prophesy in His name and drive out demons. That’s great. But if you are not doing His will (i.e. sinning), you will not go to heaven (per Galatians 5:21).
So, the “them” in verse 23 are those who are baptized and call themselves Christian (Catholic or non-Catholic) who are living sinful lives. Those who are not seeking the will of God but are rather looking to themselves.
Darlene said,
September 14, 2012 at 4:26 pm
I can’t believe that I’ve read up to comment #689. (truthfully, there are some comments I skimmed over & didn’t actually “read.”). With that said, I considered it necessary to clear up a misconception that many Protestants have.
In #688 dgh said, “The East has everything Rome does minus Bryan Cross.”
And, in #689 jedpark said, “The East has everything Rome does except the Pope.”
These comments demonstrate an ignorance of the Orthodox Church in both her teachings and practices. If anyone is interested, I can go into greater depth.
The Dude said,
September 14, 2012 at 6:03 pm
John Bugay,
As you know, the dogmatic definitions themselves are what are infallible, not the arguments used in defining them nor even the mentality/intent of the framers of the dogmas. So even if it is granted that Augustine’s goof as you put it infected the West for 1000 years and completely dominated and corrupted thoughts and development on justification with no one aware of it until after Trent, that does not explain where the East got their notion of justification/righteousness which is much more in-line with Tridentine infused righteousness than the reformers’ notions. Ignorance of Greek cannot be levied against them.
Jason Loh said,
September 14, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Darlene (re#964),
Those comments were polemical (and hence the sarcasm therein) — not a comprehensive articulation of EO vis-a-vis Rome. At the same time, the Protestant “doctrine” of justification by faith, particularly as espoused by Luther, has not been spared mischaracterisation from detractors – even *within* Protestantism.
Jason Loh said,
September 14, 2012 at 10:15 pm
“At the same time, the Protestant “doctrine” of justification by faith, particularly as espoused by Luther, has not been spared mischaracterisation from detractors – even *within* Protestantism.”
I refer to the heresies of the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), Federal Vision (FV), Wesleyanism, etc.
Darlene said,
September 15, 2012 at 12:03 pm
Jason: Whether such comments were said with sarcasm or not, I have encountered Protestants who think Orthodox are just that, Roman Catholics minus the pope. Sarcasm is often difficult to perceive in cyberspace; hence my comment in the first place.
Darlene said,
September 15, 2012 at 12:43 pm
Mark McCulley: You said in #678, “Were we called by a gospel which promised some “union” (or mutual indwelling) by which the Creator/creature distinction was overcome by our participation in the nature of Deity?”
I don’t know how a Roman Catholic would respond to this comment, but as an Orthodox Christian I can say that a misunderstanding is employed here when addressing our participation with the divine nature as expressed by Peter (II Peter 1:4). In our communion with Christ, the Creator/creature distinction cannot be “overcome” or blurred, or eradicated. The very need that we must repent daily to the One who is our Savior and Lord points to such a distinction. How can one who is no longer a creature repent to a Creator if there is no distinction? When we worship the God in the Divine Liturgy we hear: “It is meet and right to hymn Thee, to bless Thee, to praise Thee, to give thanks to Thee, and to worship Thee in every place of Thy dominion: for Thou art God ineffable, inconceivable, invisible, incomprehensible, ever-existing and eternally the same…”.
As Orthodox, we would say that we do not & cannot participate in God’s essence, yet He extends and offers for us to participate in His energies. We share in all His divine attributes as (and while) we are becoming changed into His likeness from one degree of glory to another. Alien righteousness is indeed a foreign concept to us. I would direct you to St. Athanasius’ writing “On the Incarnation” as to the Orthodox understanding of the incarnation and how God becoming man and taking flesh to Himself ties into our understanding of union with our Creator. However, we would never say the distinction between us as creatures who sin and need to repent to a Holy God is ever “overcome”. We as His creatures, His sons and daughters, must always bow in obedience to our Holy Creator.
TurretinFan said,
September 18, 2012 at 9:04 pm
TheDude:
a) It is interesting to me how “more in line with” is used as the standard when looking for allies, but “our way or the highway” is the standard when it comes to actually defining dogma.
b) It definitely is popular to suggest that only the definition itself is infallible, but Vatican I (one of the few places where an allegedly infallible definition actually discusses the matter) does not say “only” the definition itself, to the exclusion of the rationale for the definition, is infallible. It says that the bishop of Rome is infallible and that the definitions he provides are therefore irreformable.
-TurretinFan
johnbugay said,
September 19, 2012 at 3:55 am
The Dude said #965,
Sorry for not responding sooner Dude, your comment just made its way to my inbox yesterday.
I am aware that only the “dogmatic definitions” are infallible. It’s interesting to me, however, that the “infallible magisterium” can put wrong, incorrect information into its magic box, shake it up, and come out with infallible dogma. It seems more likely to me that the principle “garbage in, garbage out” applies.
As to where the East got its notions, you may want to take a look at Donald Fairbairn’s recent article on that very topic:
Click to access JETS_50-2_289-310_Fairbairn.pdf
Fairbairn traces three “trajectories” of salvation through patristic soteriology:
Irenaeus and the “personal” understanding of salvation
This sounds very much like Calvin’s [monergistic] doctrine of Union with Christ – a thing effected by God’s grace, to which man can never aspire on his own efforts.
Eastern writers Origen and Gregory of Nyssa went in a different direction:
So yes, according to Trent, it is very much “the task of the human soul” to continue to do things to “achieve” salvation.
That sounds very much like the kinds of things I’ve cited Joseph Ratzinger as saying.
Of Gregory of Nyssa, who provided “a minimalist correction” to Origen, he says, “Gregory continues to see through Origen’s eyes in many ways”.
Finally, he discusses Cyril of Alexandria, who distinguishes between “unity of substance (which God does not share with us at all), and unity of fellowship (which is the heart of what he does share with us):
I’ll leave you to sort out the details of who really resembles whom.
Darlene said,
September 19, 2012 at 4:49 am
John Bugay: There is quite a bit to absorb in what you have posted about the writings of St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril, & Origen. I would like to respond in greater detail when I am able to gather my thoughts; it’s late & I’m ready to go to sleep. However, I just wanted to point out that Origen’s teachings on the pre-existence of the souls & universalism were judged by the Church in council to be heretical. Therefore, Origen is not honored as a saint nor given deference within the Orthodox Church of the East as St. Irenaeus & St. Cyril, & of course St. Athanasius. And Gregory of Nyssa is yet a whole ‘nother topic! :-)
There are multiple ways in which the Orthodox Church differs in her teachings compared to both the Reformed & Roman Catholic Church of the West. However, specifically with regard to The Dude’s comment about the East’s understanding of justification being more in line with Trent, I would like to state emphatically that there is no such concept as merit (as the Roman Catholics teach it) within Orthodoxy.
Although I do not adhere to various teachings within the Reformed churches & the Roman Catholic Church as well, I have tried to make it my aim to be at peace with all men as far as it depends upon me, & to maintain irenic discourse.
In Christ’s Love,
Darlene Nonna
johnbugay said,
September 19, 2012 at 9:16 am
Darlene — I’m aware that Origen’s teachings were judged heretical, and Fairbairn mentions that in the linked article (pg 297). However. as the article notes, Gregory of Nyssa (who pre-dated the 5th council) follows his “non-heretical” notions fairly closely.
I’m aware of that too.
I’ve expanded on this comment a bit in a blog post at Triablogue, and I’ve brought in some other elements that show some greater context.
Like you, I make an effort “to be at peace with all men as far as it depends upon me”, however, I have one exception, and that is, I find Rome to be an unbearable influence on “the church” (I mean that historically, and from as early as Roman influence became an influence). And I try to say so, in a documented way, as earnestly as I can.
Pete Holter said,
September 19, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Jeff Cagle wrote,
Greetings in Christ, Jeff! I enjoy your thoughts. :)
Sometimes you will see Augustine speak of what we will be in the end as being what we are now, and at other times you will see him speak of what we are now without consideration of what we will be. And both evaluations are true at the same time, but with different considerations coming into play. For Augustine, a Christian who is not elect will have been called, but not called according to His purpose, be a child of God, but not a child of the promise of God, walk with Christ as one of His disciples, but not as His disciple indeed. And even though a man who is not of the elect has been justified and is righteous—not a simulated righteousness, but a true righteousness (cf. On Rebuke and Grace, Ch. 9.20)—Augustine will say that this man has no part in Christ, is a wolf within the Church, etc. in accordance with God’s foreknowledge and predestination as being an already accomplished reality.
Here are two selections that I think are helpful:
I hope you have a blessed night with your loved ones!
With love in Christ,
Pete
Jeff Cagle said,
September 21, 2012 at 8:24 am
Pete (#974): I’m not ignoring you, but I’m swamped at the moment. I appreciate the distinction that you’re making, and I agree with it. My original error in reading Rebuke was to take his statements as all referring to the “predestinarian” perspective rather than as a mixture of the two.
More later.
Jeff Cagle said,
September 21, 2012 at 8:27 am
(That is to say, I agree that Augustine is best read as making this distinction, NOT that I agree with the use of terms as the best way to express our salvation.)
Pete Holter said,
September 22, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Jeff Cagle wrote,
Thanks, Jeff!
I’ve been enjoying this song the past couple of days and wanted to pass it along:
Also, an exchange between Julian and Augustine that I thought was funny (although rude):
With love in Christ,
Pete
Bob S said,
September 23, 2012 at 6:37 pm
One couldn’t do better than Mr. Cross’s 936 and 940 when it comes to epitomizing the shortcomings of the CtC.
After all the claim to fame for that cabal is the ex prot. credentials that one brings to the table.
Yet for some reason Mr. Cross can’t bring himself to admit to the reformed explanation of Abraham’s justification in Gen. 15.
Which means that he is either:
1. Incompetent to the question and has no idea of the G&N consequences of the reformed doctrine of justification, much more is ignorant of the reformed faith in general
or
2. That he is intentionally deceitful in presenting the options available.
Enough said. Whether it is Bryan stumped by the door to door presentation of the Mormon apostolate or the Luther like angst of the novice, Josh Lim, CtC operates on the ignorance of all parties concerned, not just its intended audience. (Neither does Mr. Stellman seem to be aware of the historic reformed answers to the Roman questions.)
Not to worry though. Tis but a brief respite in the assault. After they catch their breath and get their nerve up, my prophecy is they’ll be back and gunning for the argument in the Book of Romans. (Funny, Paul doesn’t mention Peter the pope in the same, never mind address his missive to him, but hey, let’s not sweat the details as we exhort the lemmings forward, upward, onward . . . . over the cliff.)
cheers
Jason Loh said,
September 24, 2012 at 8:06 am
“(Neither does Mr. Stellman seem to be aware of the historic reformed answers to the Roman questions.)”
Nor does he seem to be aware of the history of the papacy … and of the Jesuits … and the pagan origins of the Roman system which lie deep in the bosom of Mother Church, the Satanism in the heart of Vatican, the homosexuality and paedophilia … of the continuing Counter-Reformation until today … of Papam ipsum verum Antichristum esse (The pope is the very Antichrist) held by the Reformers to a man ……………
9/2/2012 Give Us Clean Hearts | ForeWords said,
December 2, 2012 at 8:21 am
[…] Response to Jason Stellman, Part 1 (greenbaggins.wordpress.com) […]
Has the Time Come to Give Jason Stellman a Mulligan? | Literate Comments said,
October 14, 2014 at 10:48 pm
[…] the interaction with Lane Keister at Greenbaggins that was so long that it had to be separated into Part 1 (980 comments) and Part 2 (a merciful 63 comments), all of which left the few who put down […]