Will Faithful Roman Catholics go to heaven from Canon Wired on Vimeo.
Here is the comment I left on the video: I am a recent convert to the Church, (the Catholic Church) and have been steeped in Reformed theology about as much as a layman can be. So I think I understand what I am leaving behind (and what I am able to keep from it) and where I am going. Upon unbiased examination, Rome is simply not what I was told she was. The main difference (according to Protestants) seems to boil down to imputation Vs. infusion. Well, if you have a proper understanding of the primacy of grace in Catholic theology, then this distinction just does not add up to a reason to stay separated from the Church Christ founded. Grace is ALWAYS first in Catholic theology. If infused grace makes me holy, that sure looks like the work of God to me. Protestants like to focus on Eph 2:8-9: "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast." Catholics love that verse as well but have a better way of explaining verse 10: "For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Infusion is a much more beautiful doctrine. God is not content that we remain in our sin. We must be perfect as Jesus said we must. And that perfection comes from Him in both Catholic and Reformed theology. If Luther's snow-covered dunghill (imputation) were not merely snow-covered but instead transformed by God into pure snow from top to bottom (infusion), which is more miraculous? Which is more monergistic? Which gives more glory to God? Infusion of course. As far as Doug thinking I will be in hell (for I certainly think I understand Catholic theology and reject the Protestant understanding of sola fide) I am OK with that. I respect his conviction. But let it be known that Catholics believe the same. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Unless you are invincibly ignorant of the identity Christ's Church, you will be damned for rejecting her. As the church father St. Irenaeus said in 180 AD: "It is incumbent to obey the priests who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (Against Heresies, 4:26:2) Why should I listen to Protestants with no authority from Christ? Your personal exegesis just is not impressive (been there done that)... sorry, but all the chest pounding and bible thumping you can muster will not make your interpretation of scripture anything more than your opinion. Who started your Church again? What year did he start it? What Bishop in the line of succession authorized it? The Reformed believe in ecclesial deism, and hold to a "conservative" religion that is merely another century's liberalism. Wake up to Mother Church. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
Thanks David. I wish Doug would explain why he thinks Catholics who believe Trent, aren't going to heaven. Exactly what set of doctrines must one believe, according to Doug, in order to be going to heaven?
ReplyDeleteIn the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Yeah the 2 minute clip didn't go into much detail. ;-) My guess is that he would boil it down to imputation. But like I said in my comment above, I just don't get how God making me holy by infusion means my works are saving me. The reformation seems at this point to be based on a straw man of what Catholics believe.
ReplyDeleteOh my. This guy. I just can't imagine how he thinks his Arminian evangelical brothers are going to waltz into heaven alongside him when, according to his particular incarnation of the Reformed position, they've got "doctrinal errors" at least as big as ours. It really seems like every brand of Christian is OK except faithful Catholics.
ReplyDeleteIt makes no sense to think that what makes a person damnable is his believing that God infuses righteousness into him on account of Christ, and doesn't merely count him righteous while he remains actually unrighteous. Even if Doug thinks that is a theological error, it is hard to see why he thinks believing that 'error' damns a person. It is like being damned eternally for getting a math problem wrong. According to the Catholic Church, what makes a person damnable is not fundamentally an error of intellect, but a culpable choice of the will to reject God. Doug doesn't seem to leave room for that for Catholics who love Christ. A person who loves Jesus and believes that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, and believes all that the Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God (including the Council of Trent), has not willed anything against God, but instead has faith in Christ, hope in Christ and love for Christ, and yet Doug thinks such a person is damned [presumably] because that person believes to be true some propositions which (according to Doug) are false. That doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteIn the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Reject your pope and the conversation will begin. Not until then.
DeleteI thought I read just a few years ago (4-8 years) that the same Doug Wilson held to the "historic Reformed position" that Catholics can go to Heaven. Please tell me I didn't imagine this!
ReplyDeleteSarah
They can co to heaven... IF they believe sola fide the way he would like them to.
ReplyDeleteYes, after I actually watched the video (sorry!) I realized he was basically saying Catholics can go to heaven as long as they're not actually faithful to their Church.
ReplyDeleteSarah
Btw, David, I didn't see your comment on the video. Did you not make it past moderation or what?
ReplyDeleteDavid, was Pastor Wilson an important figure during your time as a Protestant?
ReplyDeleteMatt,
ReplyDeleteIt has not been approved. Perhaps the link to Called to Communion was too offensive to them? ;-)
Devin,
Wilson and RC Sproul Jr. were my Reformed heroes. I still think Wilson is by far the best Reformed theologian today. His "Federal Vision" theology is nothing but good for Catholicism. It is far closer to the truth of scripture than traditional Reformed theology, which means it has the potential to move minds in a more orthodox direction. Once that happens, they will find their socks are wet with Tiber water. If Wilson converted, it would be the beginning of a tidal wave.
-David
Bryan said:
ReplyDelete"It makes no sense to think that what makes a person damnable is his believing that God infuses righteousness into him on account of Christ, and doesn't merely count him righteous while he remains actually unrighteous. Even if Doug thinks that is a theological error, it is hard to see why he thinks believing that 'error' damns a person."
What Wilson (I think) would say is that if someone TRULY believes that God infuses righteousness into them, and that righteousness can then be called theirs, that they could not then say that Christ is the one saving them because it is THEIR righteousness. So in Wilsons view, if you really understand Catholic infusion, there is no way you could have a saving knowledge that you are saved by Christ. You would almost HAVE to in some small way believe you were instrumental in your own salvation, which would push Christ out as being instrumental in any way, which would in a sense poison the entire process so you would not actually have salvation. The problem (as I see it) with that view is a Muslim type view of God where He cannot stand for an instant to share his glory. Well, that is not loving, so that is not God. If God's glory is INCREASED by sharing His glory with us by allowing our real participation (with Him always leading the dance of course) then sola fide and imputation colapse under their own weight. The entire reason Protestants cling so hard to the solas is to give God glory which they think our participation would sour. The trick is getting them to listen for even a split second that perhaps God recieves more glory another way... by leading us in graceful dance instead of carrying us on the Calvinist stretcher.
I think the trick is to use language that constantly emphasises the way God is leading our works by His grace.. going before us. Bare words like "cooperation", though true, put Calvinists on the defensive.
Of course you understand all this beter than me Bryan, i'm just thinking out loud.
-David
David,
ReplyDeleteIf infused righteousness can truly be called ours, and then it is not Christ who saves us because that infused righteousness is our own, then it follows that the saints in heaven are still simul iustus et pecccator, because (1) they cannot bootstrap their way to heaven with their own righteousness (that would be Pelagianism) and (2) they can't have Christ's righteousness infused into them, for the very reason you describe. So, they are left intrinsically unrighteous for eternity, continually and forever hiding from the Father behind the Son, as depicted in Michael Horton's cartoon.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
David,
ReplyDeleteDoug's reasoning seems be about the locus of trust. He seems to think that if a person believes that his works (in any way) save him, then necessariy he is trusting in his works, and not trusting in Christ. Such a condition is, for Doug, essentially equivalent to a person who does not have faith in Christ. Therefore, since Catholic doctrine attributes a salvific role to good works, therefore no Catholic who believes the Catholic doctrine on this subject [taught at Trent] can be saved, while holding that belief.
The problem lies in the assumption that if good works have a role in one's salvation, then one must be trusting in those works and not in Christ. That's a bad assumption. It condemns the Reformed position too, which denies that *sanctification* is monergistic, and denies that salvation consists in justification alone. We cooperate with God in working out our salvation in fear and trembling in sanctification. In Reformed theology, salvation is not equivalent to justification alone. Sanctification is part of our salvation. Scripture teaches that we are being saved, and we participate in our sanctification by our prayers, sufferings, obedience, good works, reception of the sacraments, etc. In that way we participate in our salvation, cooperating with Christ who is working in us. So if cooperation in one's salvation by one's good works entails that one is trusting in oneself and not in Christ, then either Reformed theology must reject cooperation in sanctification and endorse monergistic sanctification, or it too falls under the same condemnation Doug attributes to Catholics who affirm Trent.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Excelent points Bryan. I wish I could get you and Wilson to debate this topic. He does do debates and I think it would be fascinating. At the least, check out his "ask Doug" videos and ask some good questions now and then.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting making that point about sanctification. I never noticed that before in Reformed theology. I think looking back I believed in a "monergistic, instantaneous sanctification at death" theory when I was Reformed to explain how I could get into the beitific vision. I like Purgatory beter!
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI agree that sanctification is part of our salvation (if the terms salvation is being used in it's broader sense); but that is not the same thing as saying sanctification is part of our *justification*. This the reformers consistently denied, and this is what is addressed by the phrase "sola fide." (In the language of the reformers, while it is "salvation" that is sola gracia [something which I would expect even RCs to affirm], it is specifically "justification" that is sola fide [and that's where the action is here]). One of the frequent criticisms of Rome made by the magisterial reformers was the erroneous convolution of the concepts of sanctification and justification.
The distinction must be made academically, regardless of what side you come down on, if for no other reason than so that the conversation can actually take place meaningfully. RCs and Prots often talk past each other at this point, and I submit that it's happening in this thread as well.
Respectfully,
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you said. But, I still don't understand why Wilson believes that believing that we cooperate in our initial justification (by asking for baptism) and cooperate in our growth in justification (by receiving the sacraments, by prayer and by good deeds done in agape) makes one damned to hell. If faith alone justifies, then why does Wilson believe that a Catholic who has faith in Christ, and who believes the Council of Trent, is damned?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteWhen we say faith alone justifies, we mean that by our faith in Christ, the righteousness of Christ is reckoned as ours and our sins are reckoned as his. Those who have been justified will be sanctified (and this is quite distinct from the idea that those who are being sanctified may eventually be justified).
So we insist that our justification comes, not by our faith in our theological system, nor by our faith in the strength of our faith, nor by the positive net balance of our works, nor by the successful completion of our sanctification; but only by our faith in Christ. Specifically, we have faith that Christ's righteousness has become ours, and our sins His, because a gracious God has made it so, apart from our deserving.
So if this is what we mean by "faith in Christ," it should (I hope) be clear that such a faith is derogated by a belief that I am justified in part by something else, anything else -- say, the success of my own sanctification. If we trust in something other than Christ for our justification (understood this way), then logically we should not expect the same result as if we had trusted in Christ.
Our God is a jealous God, and will not share His glory with another. What God has done is His work alone. What follows from His work are a whole host of our own works, with which He helps us, and with which help we cooperate. This I cheerfully affirm. But when we speak of the people who do these works and cooperate this way, we're speaking of those whom He has justified. The works are at best the fruit, they are not the seed, root or branches.
And this dovetails into one last comment in this growing installment: I suggest that perhaps you've misunderstood the idiom in Philippians 2:12. We commonly think of "work out" as, like, "go work out this math problem," or "Go work out your personal differences." That's our idiom, but it is not Paul's idiom. Verse 12 is juxtaposed against verse 13: Work outwardly what God has worked inwardly.
I hope I've addressed your question.
Respectfully,
Charlie
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear to me why "faith in Christ" is "derogated" by belief that we cooperate in our justification. The Catholic Church condemns both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism. See Canon 3 of the Sixth Session of the Council of Trent. And Chapter Five of that Sixth Session reads:
It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.
God through operating grace works in us first without us, and then we respond, at which point that operating grace becomes cooperating grace. That's just what St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught. (See Summa Theologica I-II Q.111 article 2.) I have also explained this in more detail in "A Reply from a Romery Person." My point is that in the Catholic paradigm, our cooperation in justification is a response to what God does alone, just as in the Reformed paradigm our cooperation in sanctification is a response to what God does alone. So, if I believe that my cooperation in justification is a response to what God does alone, why does that "derogate" my "faith in Christ" if your belief that your cooperation in sanctification is a response to what God does alone does not "derogate" your faith in Christ?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteFair question. In order to answer it adequately, I'll have to ask you one first.
If, in the Catholic paradigm, our cooperation in justification is a response to what God does alone, then what is the thing that God does alone? To what are we responding? What has been done before we react?
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteGod moves us toward Himself by His actual grace, by stirring up the powers of our soul through the infusion and inspiration of His Holy Spirit, to cooperate with that supernatural movement. This is what Trent means by "quickening and helping grace" and "God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost," and "aroused and aided by divine grace," and "predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost." Actual grace directly (i.e. internally) enlightens the understanding, so that man can understand the gospel, and directly strengthens the will, so that man can believe the gospel. This grace is what the Council of Orange meant in saying "our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit," and "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), moving us to desire faith and godliness. This is what the Council of Orange spoke of when it declared: "We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him." This is the meaning of the Scripture, "No man can come to Me unless the Father who has sent Me draws him." (John 6:44)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Sorry -- that last unsigned post from anonymous was mine.
ReplyDeleteCharlie Long
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks. Now to try to answer your question. First, it is not necessary for a reformed person, in order to be consistent, to deny man's involvement in *everything*, just as it is not necessary for a Roman Catholic to affirm man's cooperation in *everything*. You wouldn't try to tell me that man cooperated in his creation, and I'm not trying to tell you that man plays no part in God's sanctification of him (sanctification being understood here as the process whereby we are more and more conformed to the image of Christ, not the "setting apart" as with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:2).
The question is not whether the Roman Catholic view of justification takes away from a belief in the reality of Jesus; rather, the question is whether a belief in man's cooperation in justification takes away from a biblical understanding of the work of Christ; specifically, that justification is a work of God alone which precedes works of man. The answer is in the tautology of the thing, and I think I failed to express that adequately last time. But the reformed affirmation of man's cooperation in sanctification does not take away from the reformed view that man makes no contribution toward, or can claim no cooperation in, God's justification of him.
Before you dismiss the tautology, please understand this about the reformed view. We read "By grace you are saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves -- it is the gift of God." When we read this, we understand this faith (through which salvation comes) in a particular way. That faith is faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man by the grace of a loving God, all undeserved. In simpler terms, we look to Jesus and not to ourselves. So if you ask a reformed guy if you can be saved through a faith that admits a human contribution to his justification, he will see that as being contrary to the very nature of saving faith. It's like asking someone if the color red is also the color blue.
Continued....
Charlie Long
.... continued
ReplyDeleteNow Doug Wilson differs with many prots in that he believes that many Roman Catholics are Christians and will be saved. He encourages people to evangelize to them as toward brothers in Christ, fellows in Trinitarian baptism, not as toward heathens. But he believes this because he also believes that most of us are much better Christians than we are theologians. In this he is much truer to classical reformation theology than some of his fellows -- he believes those who look to Jesus will be saved by Him, all their theological discombobulations notwithstanding. I agree with this, I take a great amount of comfort in it.
Another thing that I think will be helpful. There is a distinction that should be made between the reformed and RC views of the grace of God with relation to justification. To the RC, if I understand correctly, though there is grace involved in justification, yet the initiative grace of God (that which precedes any reaction or response by man) is merely a potential-laden grace. It is not grace-unto-efficacy; rather, it is grace-unto-the-possibility-of-efficacy. God enables man, and God will to some degree further assist, but ultimately the question of whether that grace actually results in justification depends upon the response of the man, and in the RC view that response could go either way at this point.
In contrast to this, in the reformed view the thing that precedes man's response is the determination of efficacy. God's salvific grace to His elect is not merely the possibility of justification; rather, it IS justification. Those who are justified will most certainly be sanctified; but that sanctification (with which man cooperates) is not a process upon which hangs the final determination of whether he is justified or saved.
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. You write, "That faith is faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man by the grace of a loving God, all undeserved." Faith in Christ is, apparently, not enough for salvation. One must have faith in "the righteousness of Christ applied to the sinful man...." Hence the Catholic who has faith in Christ, but does not have "faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to the sinful man" (i.e. affirm some Reformed dogma), is damned. I don't see that in the Bible either, i.e. the necessity for salvation of having "faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man."
You say that the "biblical understanding of the work of Christ" is that "justification is a work of God alone which precedes works of man." I don't see that anywhere in the Bible.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteDisclaimer: Please give the following a charitable reading. My little kiddoes are ever-present (God love 'em), so my etiquette filter may not be functioning at full capacity. You know how printed communication leaves so much room for miscommunication...
I see two challenges in your last post: 1) that the reformed concept of sola fide is self-contradictory (since the reformed concept of faith includes something more than "mere faith," and 2) that the reformed concept of sola fide is unbiblical.
As to the first. About the RC who has faith in Christ but does not have faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man: it seems as though you're implying that the reformed faith is laden with additives, but the RC faith is organic and free range. Can you more precisely define that RC guy's faith? I am assuming it is not merely an assent to the historical reality of a man named Jesus. When you do define that faith more precisely, wouldn't I then be able to return your challenge back to you with equal validity? My point here is that it is rhetorically unfair for either one of us to assume in the background that our concept of faith is sterile and pristine, while the other guy's concept is laden with additives. In truth, unless our concepts of faith are too nebulous and vague to seriously discuss, they will be equally open to your challenge.
As to the biblical challenges. Glad to go there. But this will be tangential to the original question of how, according to a sola fide guy, a person who has "faith in Christ" plus a belief that he contributes to his justification isn't saved. I'm cool with going there, I'm just sayin'.
The answer to the original question (condensed version) is simply this: if by "faith in Christ" you mean "eggs for breakfast," then no -- that person isn't saved. Granted, that's an extreme way to make the point. But if by "faith in Christ" you mean something that amounts to "faith in something else," then you're still in the same boat. I think all will acknowledge that faith has to have a definition, and that once a thing labelled "faith" is discovered not to meet that definition, it must be declared "not faith."
The answer to the scriptural challenge is forthcoming, if that's the way you want the conversation to go (and most likely a little later this afternoon).
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThe orthodox Catholic not only assents to the doctrines of the Church (summarized in the Creed), but he also hopes to be eternally united with Christ in heaven, and he loves Christ above all else (this is the virtue of agape). That's just what living faith is, for a Catholic, as I explained in "Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?." We have faith in God, who is one, through believing the articles of faith, which are many (see Summa Theologica II-II Q.1 a.6 ad 2).
What I don't see from Scripture is what the orthodox Catholic has (or lacks) that derogates "faith in Christ" such that he is not saved. I don't see why he must also believe in extra nos imputation in order to have saving faith in Christ, or from Scripture why he must not believe that he cooperated (unmeritoriously) in his initial justification (by requesting baptism) in order to have saving faith. Nor do I see from Scripture why he must not believe that his good works done in sanctifying grace and agape are presently rewarded by God by an increase in sanctifying grace and thus an increase in agape and thus an increase in his justification. In short, I don't see in Scripture anything that makes believing Trent incompatible with having saving faith.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
(Line of reasoning): I love Jesus. I believe and act upon the reality that the sacrifice of Christ brings me into friendship with God. I also believe that the grace won by Christ is poured out into my heart (infused) and that I must respond to that grace with works (synergy) for it to be efficacious. In other words, if I don't act upon the grace I receive I resist it. All that to say, I am going to hell. However, if I happen to believe that on the books Jesus took my sin and I take his righteousness, alien as it may be, I am going to heaven.
ReplyDeleteNow that's good news!
Brent,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, where did your sin go? What exactly did Jesus do with regard to your sin? If Christ taking your sin is alien, what is it that you find easier to swallow?
Charlie Long
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteBecause God is as gracious as He is, and because I believe the distinctives of the reformed faith are true, I can say that I believe most of the people who we will be surrounded by in heaven will have had some problem area in their formulation of the doctrine of justification. (Understatement of the hour.) We are not saved through our faith in the integrity of our theological formulations. The best of us, on the last day, will only be able to say "I believe in Jesus."
However. I also believe that the distinctives of the RC formulation of the concept of justification are such that the closer you get to conscientiously affirming them, the further you get from being that person who "believes in Jesus." I know you're saying you don't think scripture bears this out, and I will try to give you an answer from the reformed perspective as time allows.
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI know you're saying you don't think scripture bears this out
Correct.
and I will try to give you an answer from the reformed perspective as time allows.
Ok.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
David,
ReplyDeleteRe: Reformation as a straw-man(-ing) of Catholicism... yes, in my experience so far, that's exactly right, and for the reason Matt Y gives at C2C: without that straw man, there is no justification for their standing in opposition to the Church Christ founded.
Anyway, sorry to play cheerleader, but... Go Meyer!
Praised be Jesus Christ!
What happened to our conversation? I came here to post and the last several installments are gone. Wussup?
ReplyDeleteCharlie Long
Bryan? Brent? David? Anybody know what happened to the thread?
ReplyDeleteCharlie Long
Charlie, Blogger had a hiccup over the last few days, and Blogger users everywhere lost comments. That may have happened here. I'll see if I can dig up the lost comments.
ReplyDeleteIn the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Ok, Charlie, I have the missing comments. After my comment on May 11 (11:21 AM), you wrote:
ReplyDeleteBryan,
Thanks. Now to try to answer your question. First, it is not necessary for a reformed person, in order to be consistent, to deny man's involvement in *everything*, just as it is not necessary for a Roman Catholic to affirm man's cooperation in *everything*. You wouldn't try to tell me that man cooperated in his creation, and I'm not trying to tell you that man plays no part in God's sanctification of him (sanctification being understood here as the process whereby we are more and more conformed to the image of Christ, not the "setting apart" as with Paul and Barnabas in Acts 13:2).
The question is not whether the Roman Catholic view of justification takes away from a belief in the reality of Jesus; rather, the question is whether a belief in man's cooperation in justification takes away from a biblical understanding of the work of Christ; specifically, that justification is a work of God alone which precedes works of man. The answer is in the tautology of the thing, and I think I failed to express that adequately last time. But the reformed affirmation of man's cooperation in sanctification does not take away from the reformed view that man makes no contribution toward, or can claim no cooperation in, God's justification of him.
Before you dismiss the tautology, please understand this about the reformed view. We read "By grace you are saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves -- it is the gift of God." When we read this, we understand this faith (through which salvation comes) in a particular way. That faith is faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man by the grace of a loving God, all undeserved. In simpler terms, we look to Jesus and not to ourselves. So if you ask a reformed guy if you can be saved through a faith that admits a human contribution to his justification, he will see that as being contrary to the very nature of saving faith. It's like asking someone if the color red is also the color blue.
Now Doug Wilson differs with many prots in that he believes that many Roman Catholics are Christians and will be saved. He encourages people to evangelize to them as toward brothers in Christ, fellows in Trinitarian baptism, not as toward heathens. But he believes this because he also believes that most of us are much better Christians than we are theologians. In this he is much truer to classical reformation theology than some of his fellows -- he believes those who look to Jesus will be saved by Him, all their theological discombobulations notwithstanding. I agree with this, I take a great amount of comfort in it.
Another thing that I think will be helpful. There is a distinction that should be made between the reformed and RC views of the grace of God with relation to justification. To the RC, if I understand correctly, though there is grace involved in justification, yet the initiative grace of God (that which precedes any reaction or response by man) is merely a potential-laden grace. It is not grace-unto-efficacy; rather, it is grace-unto-the-possibility-of-efficacy. God enables man, and God will to some degree further assist, but ultimately the question of whether that grace actually results in justification depends upon the response of the man, and in the RC view that response could go either way at this point.
In contrast to this, in the reformed view the thing that precedes man's response is the determination of efficacy. God's salvific grace to His elect is not merely the possibility of justification; rather, it IS justification. Those who are justified will most certainly be sanctified; but that sanctification (with which man cooperates) is not a process upon which hangs the final determination of whether he is justified or saved.
I responded:
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
Thanks for your reply. You write, "That faith is faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man by the grace of a loving God, all undeserved." Faith in Christ is, apparently, not enough for salvation. One must have faith in "the righteousness of Christ applied to the sinful man...." Hence the Catholic who has faith in Christ, but does not have "faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to the sinful man" (i.e. affirm some Reformed dogma), is damned. I don't see that in the Bible either, i.e. the necessity for salvation of having "faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man."
You say that the "biblical understanding of the work of Christ" is that "justification is a work of God alone which precedes works of man." I don't see that anywhere in the Bible.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Then you replied:
ReplyDeleteBryan,
Disclaimer: Please give the following a charitable reading. My little kiddoes are ever-present (God love 'em), so my etiquette filter may not be functioning at full capacity. You know how printed communication leaves so much room for miscommunication...
I see two challenges in your last post: 1) that the reformed concept of sola fide is self-contradictory (since the reformed concept of faith includes something more than "mere faith," and 2) that the reformed concept of sola fide is unbiblical.
As to the first. About the RC who has faith in Christ but does not have faith in the righteousness of Christ applied to sinful man: it seems as though you're implying that the reformed faith is laden with additives, but the RC faith is organic and free range. Can you more precisely define that RC guy's faith? I am assuming it is not merely an assent to the historical reality of a man named Jesus. When you do define that faith more precisely, wouldn't I then be able to return your challenge back to you with equal validity? My point here is that it is rhetorically unfair for either one of us to assume in the background that our concept of faith is sterile and pristine, while the other guy's concept is laden with additives. In truth, unless our concepts of faith are too nebulous and vague to seriously discuss, they will be equally open to your challenge.
As to the biblical challenges. Glad to go there. But this will be tangential to the original question of how, according to a sola fide guy, a person who has "faith in Christ" plus a belief that he contributes to his justification isn't saved. I'm cool with going there, I'm just sayin'.
The answer to the original question (condensed version) is simply this: if by "faith in Christ" you mean "eggs for breakfast," then no -- that person isn't saved. Granted, that's an extreme way to make the point. But if by "faith in Christ" you mean something that amounts to "faith in something else," then you're still in the same boat. I think all will acknowledge that faith has to have a definition, and that once a thing labelled "faith" is discovered not to meet that definition, it must be declared "not faith."
The answer to the scriptural challenge is forthcoming, if that's the way you want the conversation to go (and most likely a little later this afternoon).
Charlie Long
Then I replied:
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
The orthodox Catholic not only assents to the doctrines of the Church (summarized in the Creed), but he also hopes to be eternally united with Christ in heaven, and he loves Christ above all else (this is the virtue of agape). That's just what living faith is, for a Catholic, as I explained in "Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?." We have faith in God, who is one, through believing the articles of faith, which are many (see Summa Theologica II-II Q.1 a.6 ad 2).
What I don't see from Scripture is what the orthodox Catholic has (or lacks) that derogates "faith in Christ" such that he is not saved. I don't see why he must also believe in extra nos imputation in order to have saving faith in Christ, or from Scripture why he must not believe that he cooperated (unmeritoriously) in his initial justification (by requesting baptism) in order to have saving faith. Nor do I see from Scripture why he must not believe that his good works done in sanctifying grace and agape are presently rewarded by God by an increase in sanctifying grace and thus an increase in agape and thus an increase in his justification. In short, I don't see in Scripture anything that makes believing Trent incompatible with having saving faith.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Then Brent wrote:
ReplyDelete(Line of reasoning): I love Jesus. I believe and act upon the reality that the sacrifice of Christ brings me into friendship with God. I also believe that the grace won by Christ is poured out into my heart (infused) and that I must respond to that grace with works (synergy) for it to be efficacious. In other words, if I don't act upon the grace I receive I resist it. All that to say, I am going to hell. However, if I happen to believe that on the books Jesus took my sin and I take his righteousness, alien as it may be, I am going to heaven.
Now that's good news!
Then you replied to Brent:
ReplyDeleteBrent,
First of all, where did your sin go? What exactly did Jesus do with regard to your sin? If Christ taking your sin is alien, what is it that you find easier to swallow?
Charlie Long
Then you replied to me:
ReplyDeleteBryan,
Because God is as gracious as He is, and because I believe the distinctives of the reformed faith are true, I can say that I believe most of the people who we will be surrounded by in heaven will have had some problem area in their formulation of the doctrine of justification. (Understatement of the hour.) We are not saved through our faith in the integrity of our theological formulations. The best of us, on the last day, will only be able to say "I believe in Jesus."
However. I also believe that the distinctives of the RC formulation of the concept of justification are such that the closer you get to conscientiously affirming them, the further you get from being that person who "believes in Jesus." I know you're saying you don't think scripture bears this out, and I will try to give you an answer from the reformed perspective as time allows.
Charlie Long
Then I replied to you:
ReplyDeleteCharlie,
I know you're saying you don't think scripture bears this out.
Correct.
and I will try to give you an answer from the reformed perspective as time allows.
Ok.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Then wilkins wrote:
ReplyDeleteDavid,
Re: Reformation as a straw-man(-ing) of Catholicism... yes, in my experience so far, that's exactly right, and for the reason Matt Y gives at C2C: without that straw man, there is no justification for their standing in opposition to the Church Christ founded.
Anyway, sorry to play cheerleader, but... Go Meyer!
Praised be Jesus Christ!
I think that's all the missing comments.
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteWow -- nice job. Okay, well, here's what I was gonna post the other day.
The questions I have before me are, first, why a person must, in addition to his faith in Christ, believe in the distinctives of the reformed faith WRT justification; and second, how it is that the distinctives of the Roman Catholic faith WRT justification derogate from faith in Christ. I promised you a scriptural argument, so here we go.
In a nutshell, the answer consists in the nature of justification, and in the intended purpose of faith. In other words, scripture tells us to have faith for a particular salvific reason (justification), and scripture tells us the nature of that justification (forgiveness of sin; specifically, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to me, and my sin to Christ). So, scripturally speaking, the promise of God is that the result of our faith in Christ will be justification-by-imputation. You want to deny the imputation, but in scripture imputation is the whole salvific point of faith. So what you're asking amounts to this: "Why can't I be justified by faith even though I don't believe in the intended consequence of faith? Why can't I receive the blessings of imputation even though I deny imputation?" And my answer is, "Some probably will; however, theological ignorances and human intellectual frailties notwithstanding, the more conscientiously you deny the intended purpose of faith, the less likely it is that you actually have it, and will reap the blessings of it." That's the basic shape of the argument, so now let's dig in.
Charlie Long
(Continued...)
(...Continued)
ReplyDeleteGalatians 3 is a good place to start. First, to my assertion that the salvific purpose of faith is justification. "Verses 7-9: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. 8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” 9 So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith." Verse 11: "Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”" Verses 21-22: "21 For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. 22 But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe." Verses 24-26: "So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith." But an even stronger statement is found at the beginning of this line of argumentation, in verses 15-16 of the previous chapter: "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." The reason we have believed in Christ, says Paul, is in order to be justified by that faith.
Charlie Long
(Continued...)
(...Continued)
ReplyDeleteSo Paul is arguing that justification comes through faith in Christ, but his argument is more complex than just the assertion, and wrapped up in the argument is information about the nature of the justification itself. Back to chapter 3, in verses 5-6 Paul asks a rhetorical question: did you guys receive the Spirit because of your obedience to the law, or rather because you believed the promises of God declared to you? And he gives an example of the latter choice: "just as Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness". Were you guys justified by your obedience to the law, or are you justified like Abraham was, whose faith was accounted to him as if it were righteousness? That's the rhetorical question, and the answer is obviously the latter, which is why the next verse can begin: "Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham." We have to come away from this acknowledging that, if we are to be sons of Abraham, it can only be by mimicking Abraham: righteousness can only be accounted to us because we have faith in Christ. I know some will bristle at the accounting allegory, but none of us can escape the fact that it's Paul's allegory -- he picked an accounting term to illustrate the thing. Abraham believed God, and that belief was reckoned to him as righteousness; and if we want to be righteous before God, we must be sons of Abraham, which means righteousness must come to us the same way it came to him.
But there is more to the reckoning. What about our sin? Where did it go? Paul says in verse 13: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree.”" But there's more to the curse of Christ than just that he hung on a tree. Three verses back Paul begins this sub-line with "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Christ himself did obey all the things written in the Law; but he was cursed anyway. Shall we call this unjust? No -- on the cross he was made as us -- he bore our sins as though they were his own, and he paid the penalty for them due us. He, the obedient, bore the curse of one who was disobedient; and the reason he did this is so that we, the disobedient, could bear the righteousness of Him who was obedient. He did it so that we could have real righteousness reckoned/imputed to us through faith, just like Abraham, as Paul says here: "13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”— 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith."
This theme is consistent throughout scripture. But rather than shotgun it, I thought it would be better to try to discuss one or two passages at a time on their merits. Is this enough to get us started, or shall I continue?
Charlie long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteWell, let's start with your first sentence:
"In other words, scripture tells us to have faith for a particular salvific reason (justification),"
Where does Scripture tell us to have faith for justification?
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThat first post, which you quoted, was only the outline of the argument to follow. I answered your question in detail in the succeeding posts. Look particularly at my 12:51 post.
Charlie Long
Sorry I have been out sick for a few days guys so havent kept up on the conversation here. Some wicked cough I caught on an airplaine.
ReplyDeleteDavid wrote: "Wilson and RC Sproul Jr. were my Reformed heroes. I still think Wilson is by far the best Reformed theologian today."
ReplyDeleteI agree. Wilson is the best at being wrong.
Kevin
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteIn case I was unclear, when I said "I answered your question in detail in the succeeding posts," I meant to refer to primarily to the following comment of mine taken from the 12:51 post(although it is with reluctance that I repeat only this part of it and risk that the rest of the argument will then be passed over).
In answer to your question of where scripture tells us to have faith for justification, I wrote:
"But an even stronger statement is found at the beginning of this line of argumentation, in verses 15-16 of [Galatians chapter 2]: "We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." The reason we have believed in Christ, says Paul, is in order to be justified by that faith."
Charlie Long
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteSorry for not seeing your comment until now. Blogger was down for 30 hours and my attention went elsewhere.
You said:
"First of all, where did your sin go? What exactly did Jesus do with regard to your sin? If Christ taking your sin is alien, what is it that you find easier to swallow?"
You asked three questions:
1. What do you mean? That sin has a positive existential existence? I thought it was a depravation. As such, I would be in need of that which I lost.
2. Jesus is the sacrifice for my sin. He is my Paschal Lamb.
3. My point was that the claim that a Catholic soteriological schema = going to heal is fallacious; and fallacious in both a facetious and nieve sense. Or, it is possible, the objector does not understand the Catholic schema and is fearful of the consequences of a Catholic-strawman.
Peace to you on your journey,
Brent
"going to heal" should read "going to hell"
ReplyDeletesorry
Brent,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. In order, by your numbers:
1) I am sympathetic with the view of sin as deprivation. But in the context of our interaction I refer specifically to *unpunished* sin. I refer to the debt of guilt incurred by the sin. We all agree (I presume) that the Christian does not bear the wrath of God due his sin. We do not pay the penalty of our sin, and indeed we could not. But (and this was my question earlier) where does the guilt go? How can we say God is just if He overlooks the reality of incurred guilt?
To this Paul speaks directly:
"[Christ] God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus" (Romans 3:25-26). So according to Paul, one of the reasons Christ's atoning sacrifice was necessary was so that God's justice could be confirmed. Why would God's justice need to be confirmed? Because God had passed over the sins of much of human history. The sins were in forbearance, so to speak, like student loans. But God had to confirm that He was just, and not one to doctor the books; and He showed this by finally and completely punishing all of the forborne sins. The debt was not forgotten or swept under a rug; rather, it was called due, and payment was required in full.
Where mercy enters in here is in the fact that God poured out this punishment on His Son, instead of on us who deserved it. In so doing, God is both perfectly just AND at the same time the justifier of the guilty.
I say all that to say this: if you scoff at the idea of imputation (which I took you to be doing in your May 14th post), then you're scoffing at the propitiatory role of Christ WRT your guilt. If your guilt is not transferred to Christ, then where does it go? If your guilt remains with you because Christ did not bear your sins, then how else can God confirm His justice than to require the payment from you fully and directly? That was my question. It's not an existential one in the way I think you originally took it.
Charlie Long
Brent,
ReplyDeleteOn to your number 2):
This is interwoven with number 1 above. It's fine to say Christ is our Paschal Lamb -- and Praise God for it, Brutha! But what does that really mean? What's the significance of it? How is it supposed to solve our problem? If you understand Christ's role as Paschal Lamb in some other way than a propitiatory one, please explain exactly what that role is. What exactly is it that Christ's Lamb-ness accomplishes, if not propitiation? And if it is propitiation, then how can propitiation function without imputation?
And to your number 3):
I don't think you're identifying a fallacy of form as much as you're objecting to the content of the argument. You don't believe the RC schema could lead one to hell. I get it. If you did believe that, you wouldn't be an RC.
But please carefully consider that if any schema were to require the denial of a foundational element of God's redemptive work, it cannot lead anywhere else but hell. My argument here (and Doug Wilson's as well, if I may presume to speak for him) is that to the extent to which RCs conscientiously deny the propitiatory role of Christ, they jettison the very center of Christian redemption. And when you deny imputation, that's exactly what you're doing.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the passages in Galatians. You wrote:
and scripture tells us the nature of that justification (forgiveness of sin; specifically, the imputation of Christ's righteousness to me, and my sin to Christ).
Scripture does not say that this justification is an extra nos imputation. We (Catholics) also believe in imputation, but one in which God counts us righteous because we are truly, internally, made righteous by the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape. I have explained this more in "Imputation and Infusion: A Reply to R.C. Sproul Jr." (see also comment #39 in that thread)
You want to deny the imputation,
No I don't. I deny extra nos imputation. God only counts us righteous if we are righteous, because God does not lie, and is not deceived. Likewise, He does not count a righteous person as a sinner, for the very same reason.
if we are to be sons of Abraham, it can only be by mimicking Abraham: righteousness can only be accounted to us because we have faith in Christ.
Right, because only those having living faith (and therefore agape) have infused righteousness, and are therefore truly righteous, not counted-as-righteous-though-internally-wicked.
What about our sin? Where did it go?
It was forgiven. (It is not the sort of thing that goes anywhere, because it is not spatial.)
Christ himself did obey all the things written in the Law; but he was cursed anyway.
He was 'cursed' in the sense that He bore the temporal consequences of human sin, i.e. suffering and death. Death was not natural to Adam, nor was it natural to the second Adam. He willingly gave Himself up to death, for our sakes, and this is what is meant by the curse. See comment #41 in "Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement."
Shall we call this unjust?
No, it was an act of mercy.
No -- on the cross he was made as us -- he bore our sins as though they were his own, and he paid the penalty for them due us.
The point in dispute here [specifically] is the sense in which He bore our sins, whether by extra nos imputation followed by the full punishment for those sins as though He Himself had committed them, or in the way I describe in the link just above.
Still, I don't see anything here in Scripture that would show that a Catholic's faith in Christ is non-salvific.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. I see two basic parts to it, to which I want to respond: 1) That though there is imputation in scripture, it's not the extra nos kind; and 2) That extra nos imputation would be unjust/unrighteous.
But I want to take the scenic route here, and begin with an argument you made in another forum (your "comment 41," linked in your last comment on this thread. Admin -- feel free to add the hyperlink right here if it helps others follow). In comment 41 of that other forum, you argued that justice is asymmetrical. While it would be unjust for God to punish more than is due, you say, it would not be unjust for God to punish less than is due. If I understand your argument correctly, you believe that God's refusal to punish the wicked could never leave God open to the charge of injustice. Is this correct?
The problem with your argument of asymmetrical justice is that, according to Paul, the thing that opened God up to the charge of injustice was under-punishment. In Romans 3:25-26, one of the reasons Christ's propitiatory sacrifice was necessary was to confirm the justice of God. Why did God's justice need to be confirmed? For two reasons, says Paul: 1) Because God overlooked past sins, and 2) Because God presently justifies sinners who believe in Christ. These two things, both falling into the "under-punishment" category, would have been challenges to God's justice were it not for the fact that Christ's death was, in part, a function of justice. See, being both just and the justifier of sinners at the same time is not normally possible, which is why when God did it He had to confirm His justice by the propitiatory slaughter of Christ. This is Paul's very argument. And now I find that I am nigh unto repeating the entirety of my last comment to Brent (May 22, 2011 9:13 PM ), so please read that again and consider it part of my interaction with you here.
I would really like for us to dig at this for a while, because I think that your 2 lines of argumentation above (that scriptural imputation is not extra nos, and that extra nos imputation would be unrighteous) have their full weight hanging from the concept of asymmetrical justice; and that the concept of asymmetrical justice is, in turn, hanging in mid air from nothing.
Charlie Long
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteAlso please note that my last reply to Brent was a twofer, and I failed to mention that just now. Please include them both.
Charlie
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteyou believe that God's refusal to punish the wicked could never leave God open to the charge of injustice. Is this correct?
Not exactly, because anyone can 'charge' God of anything. But, justice is not some standard above God, to which God is subject. He is the standard of justice. So it is impossible ultimately for anyone to appeal to justice and charge God with violating it, because God is the standard by which justice is measured.
The notion that it would always be unjust for God to punish less than is due (or give any more good than is due), is Pelagian, because it makes the sending of Christ for our salvation an act of justice on God's part (i.e. something owed to us), and not a gift of mercy. In this way, it reduces grace to nature, and that's just what Pelagianism is. Are you sure you want to take that position?
Romans 3:25 is not teaching that if God had not punished Jesus, then He would have been unjust for having overlooked prior sins, and for justifying sinners who have faith in Christ. Rather, as St. Paul says, the cross was to show [us] God's righteousness, in the greatness of His love toward us (demonstrated on the cross), and that He has made a way for us to be saved (through faith in Christ) and that He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, namely, Him whom they pierced.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteBryan has answered you well on my regard.
In Christ,
Brent
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteThis will be a twofer (too long for one post).
All of your objections here center on this one contention: that Christ's sacrifice cannot be considered an act of justice. The problem here is that Paul has said explicitly that Christ's sacrifice WAS a function of justice. Your objections apply as equally to Paul as they do to me, for it is Paul who says the things you claim cannot be said. Let me explain:
Whether you want to say the propitiatory death of Christ "confirmed" God's justice, or else rather "showed" God's justice, I'll go with you either way. We could, as some versions put it, say that Christ's death "demonstrated" the justice of God. Christ's death also "demonstrated" the love of God, as Paul tells the Romans in 5:8. It demonstrated many things.
But no matter how you slice it, we can't escape the center of Paul's argument here: that a demonstration of God's perfect and unadulterated justice was necessary *because God had passed over former sins,* and *because God presently justifies the guilty.* (We could also say, *because God formerly punished less than what was due,* and *because God presently continues to punish less than is due*.) These two things, says Paul in Romans 3:25-26, made the death of Christ necessary *as a demonstration of justice.* There are many things accomplished by, and demonstrated by, Chrits's death; but we must insist with Paul that justice is one of them. (Continued...)
(...Continued)
ReplyDeleteAnd again, in Romans 8:3-4 Paul says, "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, [God] condemned sin in the flesh, 4 in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us..." According to Paul, the law has requirements of justice, and these requirements of justice were fulfilled by the sacrifice of Christ.
But all of this is contradictory to your concept of asymmetrical justice (as per your "comment 41"). If it were perfectly within the bounds of justice for God to overlook sin, then why would Paul say this overlooking created the need for a demonstration of justice (which, BTW, turned out to be a slaughter)? Why would the question of justice's requirements be raised by forgiveness (of all things)? Paul's lines of argumentation are nonsensical if justice is asymmetrical. No, not just nonsensical, but flat wrong; for he builds his conclusions upon the premise of symmetry.
WRT your first two challenges in your last post (1., that I have subordinated God to the concept of justice, and 2., the charge of Pelagianism): though I believe you've misapplied those challenges, yet I will at this time defer to Paul on both counts. If you can show how Paul's arguments (as I've brought here from Romans 3, 8, and Galatians 2-3) escape your challenges in a way mine does not, then I will attempt to address those two challenges in more detail. Until then, I'm happy to say I'm every bit as Pelagian and blasphemous as Paul.
Arrgh... clarification:
ReplyDeleteWhen I said "forgiveness (of all things)", what I meant was "why, of all things, *forgiveness*?"
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
All of your objections here center on this one contention: that Christ's sacrifice cannot be considered an act of justice.
I never said that, nor do I believe that. In offering Himself to the Father as a sacrifice, Christ's act is supremely just, in that He [Christ] gives to the Father even more than what the law requires a man to give to God. I explain the nature of that sacrifice in "Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement."
The fact that Christ's sacrifice of Himself to the Father was an act of supreme justice does not nullify the fact that, as I said in my previous comment, if you reduce mercy to justice, then you fall into Pelagianism, because then you make God's sending of Christ for our salvation an act that was owed to us, rather than a gift of grace.
When St. Paul says "in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us" he is saying that because of the grace and agape poured out into our heart by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) in baptism, we are thereby empowered to fulfill the law in our lives. What the law could not do (i.e. empower us to fulfill it), the grace merited for us by Christ, and poured into our circumcised hearts, does. Otherwise the gospel would be no more powerful than the law, and the New Covenant no better than the Old. I have explained this in more detail in "St. Augustine on Law and Grace.") The Reformers watered down the gospel, denying its power, by denying that the gospel gives us the grace to fulfill the law. They depicted it as a covering, in which instead of making us righteous (during this life), only covers our unrighteousness, and then instantly perfects us at the moment of death. (See the video referred to, and the cartoon depicted in comment #668.) But the Catholic Church has always believed and taught that the requirement of the law is not merely fulfilled outside of us, but "in us," by the instant infusion of agape at baptism and in our daily lives as we walk in the light, not in darkness, as St. John teaches that Christ appeared to take away sins, not only by forgiving them, but by empowering us through love not to commit them: "Anyone who abides in Him does not sin." (1 John 3:6); "anyone born of God does not sin" (1 John 5:18), because the agape that is poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit (Rom 5:5) fulfills the law (Rom 13:8, 10; Gal 5:14; James 2:8), "we keep His commandments, and do what pleases Him" (1 John 3:22). The confidence we have for the day of Judgment is not because we think that on that Day God will be looking at Christ instead of us, but, as St. John says, because "as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17) He is love, and by the infusion of that love into our hearts, we are "in this world" (i.e. in this present life) already truly righteous. When God Judges us on the Day of Judgment, He will be judging us not based on how Christ lived, but how we lived in this life, in this world. And we have confidence for that Day, as St. John says, because we have already been made internally righteous and walk in righteousness, by the grace that has been given to us by Christ, through the sacraments He instituted in His Church.
(continued below)
(continued from above)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
If it were perfectly within the bounds of justice for God to overlook sin, then why would Paul say this overlooking created the need for a demonstration of justice
God does not have to beat up on an innocent man or innocent thing, in order to forgive a guilty man. The buck stops with Him, not with something higher than Himself to which He is subject, as I explained previously. Hence, He is free to forgive an offense against Him without needing to go punch something, just as you are free to forgive someone who has offended you, without needing to kick your dog or something, in order to maintain 'justice.' God likewise, is omnipotent, and thus able to forgive sin, simply by saying "I forgive you." But, what St. Paul is saying is that it was fitting for God to demonstrate His mercy and His justice, through the cross. God was not obligated to sacrifice Christ, in order to forgive us, but it was fitting because it demonstrates (i.e. shows to us) His justice, by showing us our debt to God, and demonstrating the love Christ has for us in graciously paying that debt.
St. Thomas Aquinas addresses this in Summa Theologica III Q.46 article 2 ad 3. The objection is: "Further, God's justice required that Christ should satisfy by the Passion in order that man might be delivered from sin." To that, St. Thomas replies:
"Even this justice depends on the Divine will, requiring satisfaction for sin from the human race. But if He had willed to free man from sin without any satisfaction, He would not have acted against justice. For a judge, while preserving justice, cannot pardon fault without penalty, if he must visit fault committed against another--for instance, against another man, or against the State, or any Prince in higher authority. But God has no one higher than Himself, for He is the sovereign and common good of the whole universe. Consequently, if He forgive sin, which has the formality of fault in that it is committed against Himself, He wrongs no one: just as anyone else, overlooking a personal trespass, without satisfaction, acts mercifully and not unjustly. And so David exclaimed when he sought mercy: "To Thee only have I sinned" (Psalm 50:6), as if to say: "Thou canst pardon me without injustice."
God wrongs no one, teaches St. Thomas, if He forgives sin without satisfaction. But, it was fitting that Christ make atonement through the cross, to demonstrate (i.e. show) to us His justice.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
How does this blog do italics? Is it the standard bracket-i-bracket, text, bracket-slant-i-bracket?
ReplyDeleteBryan,
ReplyDeleteIf I contend "God cannot lie," will you say I'm subordinatng God to truth? Would you deny my contention on the grounds that "the truth is not something above God to which God is subject"? Of course not. But that's exactly what you've done with justice. I say "Christ's death was necessary as a function of justice", and you deny my contention on the grounds that "justice is not some standard above God, to which God is subject." We would both agree (I hope) that just as truth is wrapped up in the very character of God, so also is justice; therefore to insist that God is always consistent with His character is not to subordinate Him to an outside entity.
If I say to you "God cannot lie," would you reply by saying, "well, technically, God is the standard of truth, so it is impossible ultimately for anyone to appeal to truth and charge God with lying, because God is the standard by which truth is measured"? I sure hope not. That would be like an Orwell novel -- whatever God says right this minute is "true" even if it contradicts what was "true" 5 minutes ago. ("We've always been at war with Oceana...") But that's the very way you've approached the justice issue -- you've argued that the reason God can't be called unjust is that whatever God does is simply tautologically just. (Ironically, you undercut your own argument by claiming elsewhere that God would be unjust if He were to punish the innocent). But again, this fails to take into account the character of God. He cannot lie; and this is true NOT because of a tautological semantic impossibility (for indeed, there is such a thing as an untruth which we'd all agree God would not speak), but rather because it would be against His nature to do so. Likewise, God is just; and this is true NOT because of a tautological word game (for there is such a thing as an unjust act which we'd agree God would not commit), but rather because it would be against His nature to act in such-and-such a way.
Continued...
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteThe question therefore is NOT whether there is such an act which, if committed by God, would constitute injustice; rather, the question is what that act would be. We disagree presently about what that act would be; nevertheless, it cannot be denied that such an act does exist, and that God will never do it.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote: "I never said [that Christ's sacrifice cannot be considered an act of justice], nor do I believe that."
But you did say it. In your May 23 11:17 PM post, you wrote that my argument "is Pelagian, because it makes the sending of Christ for our salvation an act of justice on God's part..." Unless you're in favor of Pelagianism (which I know you're not), then for you to label an argument "Pelagian" is for you a condemnation of that argument. And the argument of mine which you condemned with the Pelagian label, according to your post, is my argument that it would be unjust for God to indefinitely overlook sin; and the thing that makes this argument of mine Pelagian, you say, is *the way it makes Christ's sacrifice an act of justice.* So you did say it. But now you're saying you're okay with making Christ's sacrifice an act of justice. I'm not going to hold your feet to the fire on this -- if you say now that it's okay to believe Christ's sacrifice was an act of justice, fair enough. But in that case the Pelagian challenge is dissolved.
Unless perhaps you were referring to the idea that Christ's death was owed *to sinners.* Well, that's not what I'm saying at all. That's not what I've argued for. But that's not what Pelagians say either, so I assumed that's not what your charge was. You do seem to be sayiing that Pelagianism = believing that God owed the justice of Christ's sacrifice to men. But I'm not familiar that argument, and I really don't think that's Pelagianism. I would like some documentation on that one.
To be clear, my position here is that justice was owed to God, to the integrity of His character, and to His perfect law. Nothing was owed to us except death ("the wages of sin"). Christ bore what was owed to us by right, and we receive not that which was owed us, but rather "the gift of God."
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteYou also wrote:
"The Reformers watered down the gospel, denying its power, by denying that the gospel gives us the grace to fulfill the law."
If you really meant we deny that the *gospel* gives us grace, then you are correct -- we'd deny that. Pelagius wouldn't though-- no, he'd vehemently affirm it. He'd say that all we need is Christ's good example, and His spoken laws, and we're off on our way to attainable holiness under our own steam.
Perhaps you meant we deny that the *Holy Spirit* gives us grace to fulfill the law. In that case, no -- we would NOT deny that. Not to put too fine a point on it, but if this is how you understand the reformers, then I suggest you read more of the reformers. Calvin, for example, devotes a huge amount of ink to the topic of sanctification and the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of believers. Which of the reformers denies the work of the Holy Spirit in the sanctification of believers and their progression toward holiness? Other than tossing about the loose reference to a snow-covered dung heap, there really isn't an analysis of reformed theology on this point here at all. I do not question your sincerity, but I do appeal to your sense of fair play. This passing reference is too poor a characterization to get us anywhere.
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"When God Judges us on the Day of Judgment, He will be judging us not based on how Christ lived, but how we lived in this life, in this world. And we have confidence for that Day, as St. John says, because we have already been made internally righteous and walk in righteousness..."
So then none of the people reading John's letter would have spent a minute in purgatory if they had died the day he wrote it, right?
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteAlright -- there was more text here than I thought. The following is my last argument, although it might have to be split.
Last I want to address this paragraph of yours:
"God does not have to beat up on an innocent man or innocent thing, in order to forgive a guilty man. The buck stops with Him, not with something higher than Himself to which He is subject, as I explained previously. Hence, He is free to forgive an offense against Him without needing to go punch something, just as you are free to forgive someone who has offended you, without needing to kick your dog or something, in order to maintain 'justice.' God likewise, is omnipotent, and thus able to forgive sin, simply by saying "I forgive you." But, what St. Paul is saying is that it was fitting for God to demonstrate His mercy and His justice, through the cross. God was not obligated to sacrifice Christ, in order to forgive us, but it was fitting because it demonstrates (i.e. shows to us) His justice, by showing us our debt to God, and demonstrating the love Christ has for us in graciously paying that debt."
Okay -- I'm saying Christ had to die if we were ever going to be forgiven, and you're saying we could have been forgiven without Christ's death. If you are correct, then it is most certainly NOT fitting for Christ to have been slaughtered like He was. It would NOT have demonstrated God's justice, if it were not required as a matter of justice. It would NOT demonstrate His mercy if it weren't propitiatory in nature. If you are correct, then the sacrifice of Christ would have been almost exactly like kicking a dog for no reason. Furthermore, it is contradictory for you to say that Christ's sacrifice "shows" the justice of God, while you also maintian that it was not a function of justice. If Christ's death were not an act of justice, then neither did it demonstrate God's justice in any sense. You can't straddle the fence here.
Continued...
...continued
ReplyDeleteBut the argument is ultimately settled beyond dispute by Paul in Romans 3, because he uses both terms in the same argument -- God put forth Christ as a "propitiation," in order to demonstrate His "justice" when overlooking sin and justifying the sinner.
25 "[Christ] God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus."
Christ's death was vicarious in nature (propitiatory) which, as Paul says, served to justify God's overlooking of sin. This simply cannot be gotten around. This is the only way God could have been "both just and the justifier," according to Paul himself. You'd have us believe that being a justifier carries with it no taint of injustice, but Paul disagrees. Earlier in the chapter (verse 7) Paul argues that the only way God could judge the world would be if it were just for Him to "inflict wrath on us." But because God desired to justify us whom He loved, says Paul, He gave His own Son as a propitiation, so that the shindig could go down without injutice. The wrath was inflicted, because as a matter of justice it had to be; but it was inflicted on Christ instead of us, because as a matter of love God preferred to save us. But if you're correct -- if God could have overlooked sin without any reference to justice, then Paul's argument here is heretical. Not only that, but the death of Christ was purposeless. Paul says Christ showed His love *by taking our place* -- but if He did not take our place, then He did nothing loving at all in dying.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
If I contend "God cannot lie," will you say I'm subordinatng God to truth?
No.
But that's exactly what you've done with justice. I say "Christ's death was necessary as a function of justice", and you deny my contention on the grounds that "justice is not some standard above God, to which God is subject."
To forgive is not intrinsically contrary to justice, but to lie is intrinsically contrary to the truth.
you've argued that the reason God can't be called unjust is that whatever God does is simply tautologically just.
No, I haven't argued that, nor do I believe that.
by claiming elsewhere that God would be unjust if He were to punish the innocent
Yes, He would be unjust if He did that.
He cannot lie; ... because it would be against His nature to do so.
I completely agree.
Likewise, God is just; and this is true NOT because of a tautological word game (for there is such a thing as an unjust act which we'd agree God would not commit), but rather because it would be against His nature to act in such-and-such a way.
I completely agree.
it cannot be denied that such an act does exist, and that God will never do it.
I agree with you that there are certain action types that God would never do, because such acts would be unjust by their very nature (e.g. punishing the innocent).
Charlie (cont.)
ReplyDeleteI wrote: "I never said [that Christ's sacrifice cannot be considered an act of justice], nor do I believe that."
You replied: " But you did say it. In your May 23 11:17 PM post, you wrote that my argument "is Pelagian, because it makes the sending of Christ for our salvation an act of justice on God's part..."
Notice the difference between the act of sending Christ for our salvation, and Christ's sacrifice on the cross. Nothing God does is unjust. (Period.) But, not everything God does reduces to justice (i.e. giving to each his due); sometimes, God gives us more good than we deserve. That's called grace and mercy. It is not unjust to show mercy. But mercy is not reducible to justice. If the sending of Christ for our salvation were reduced to justice, i.e. were giving us our due, that would be Pelagianism. We would in some way have merited our salvation. But we didn't deserve Christ's coming to earth in Bethlehem; we didn't merit His coming on our behalf. It was an act of grace, not unjust, but not reducible to justice. But when Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice, He was giving to God what God is due, and that is just. So His sacrifice on the cross was both an act of mercy and grace (because we didn't merit it, and it was done gratuitously by God), *and* it was an act of justice, because through His whole earthly life and especially on the cross, Christ gave to the Father what the Father is due, and that's just what justice is, giving to someone what is due.
You do seem to be sayiing that Pelagianism = believing that God owed the justice of Christ's sacrifice to men.
I'm not saying that Pelagians themselves made that claim. (They didn't.) I'm saying that the idea that grace reduces to justice entails Pelagianism, because it makes Christ's coming something that is due to us, something we deserve. And that's at the heart of Pelagianism, namely, that by our own nature, we merited salvation (whether by meriting heaven directly, or by meriting the sending of Christ to earth to save us).
If you really meant we deny that the *gospel* gives us grace, then you are correct -- we'd deny that. Pelagius wouldn't though-- no, he'd vehemently affirm it
No, for Pelagius, grace reduces to nature. For Pelagius, we don't need grace; we have nature, free will, etc.
Perhaps you meant we deny that the *Holy Spirit* gives us grace to fulfill the law. In that case, no -- we would NOT deny that.
I assume you agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith which says, "[T]here is no sin so small but it deserves damnation." (WCF XV.4) I assume you also agree with the Larger Catechism, which says, "The imperfection of sanctification in believers ariseth from the remnants of sin abiding in every part of them ... and their best works are imperfect and defiled in the sight of God." (LC Q.78) According to the LC, even your best works, as a believer, are still tainted by sin. But according to the WCF, any sin whatsoever, no matter how small, deserves eternal damnation. So, every single thing you do during the day, no matter how small, you are performing an act that deserves eternal damnation. So, don't tell me that in Reformed theology the Holy Spirit gives you grace to fulfill the law. If the very best thing you do your whole life long still deserves eternal damnation, then it would like exactly the same if the Holy Spirit were not giving you grace to fulfill the law. So, it is a meaningless claim, because if it were false, the situation would be exactly the same.
Charlie (cont.)
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
If you are correct, then it is most certainly NOT fitting for Christ to have been slaughtered like He was. It would NOT have demonstrated God's justice, if it were not required as a matter of justice.
That conclusion does not follow. Just because an act is not required by justice, it does not follow that it cannot demonstrate God's justice. An act of mercy can, at the same time demonstrate justice, and yet not be required by justice. The crucifixion was not required by justice, because nothing required God to send Christ. He sent His Son freely by grace, not because He owed it to us. But the crucifixion demonstrates God's justice by showing us that God Himself has provided the sacrifice for our sins, His very own Son, so we see how great is our debt to God, and how great is the gift in Christ offered for the forgiveness of our sins.
It would NOT demonstrate His mercy if it weren't propitiatory in nature.
It demonstrates His mercy because He is the one coming to earth, taking on human flesh, and graciously making the sacrifice. He didn't have to do any of that; from the Incarnation to the Ascension, it was all an act of mercy on our behalf.
If you are correct, then the sacrifice of Christ would have been almost exactly like kicking a dog for no reason.
No. That an act is not necessary, does not mean that there must be "no reason" for the act. It was fitting, as St. Thomas explains, that Christ give Himself as a sacrifice for our salvation.
Furthermore, it is contradictory for you to say that Christ's sacrifice "shows" the justice of God, while you also maintain that it was not a function of justice.
I never said that Christ's sacrifice was not an act of justice. It was a just act, because in it, Christ gave the Father what is due to the Father, and that is what justice is. So, there is no contradiction.
When are you going to get around to explaining what Catholics who believe Trent, and die in that state, cannot go to heaven? :-)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteAt some point you began to think that I am arguing that the sacrifice of Christ was owed to man. I don't know where you got this, but you certainly did not get it from me (any attempts at the reductio notwithstanding). And I have specifically clarified my position on this point already, particularly in my May 31st, 8:18 post, where I wrote:
"To be clear, my position here is that justice was owed to God, to the integrity of His character, and to His perfect law. Nothing was owed to us except death ("the wages of sin"). Christ bore what was owed to us by right, and we receive not that which was owed us, but rather "the gift of God."
As it turns out, you also believe that justice was owed to God, and provided by the sacrifice of Christ. You wrote:
"I never said that Christ's sacrifice was not an act of justice. It was a just act, because in it, Christ gave the Father what is due to the Father, and that is what justice is."
Fantastic! This is not actually a point of contention after all. We both believe that Christ's sacrifice was an act of justice, giving God what was due Him.
All that remains now is to iron out where the debt came from. Can we not agree that the debt was incurred by sin? And can we not further agree that, though the debt was owed by us sinners, it was mercifully paid by Christ instead?
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteAll that remains now is to iron out where the debt came from. Can we not agree that the debt was incurred by sin?
Adam owed worship and obedience to God before his sin. Likewise, Christ (according to his human nature) owed obedience to the Father. His owing obedience to the Father was not because of our sin. Our sin wouldn't make Christ owe anything to the Father; it would make us owe more to the Father. (Recall that it would be unjust to knowingly punish an innocent man for the sins of another.)
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI find this a curious response indeed. I asked whether we could agree that Christ paid the debt of our sins, and you replied that no, the debt Christ paid was something else altogether. Seriously? Christ did not pay the debt of our sin on the cross?
If what Christ owed and paid to the Father is not related to what we owe (and didn't pay) to the Father, then what is the nexus between Christ's sacrifice and our justification? You say (and rightly) that our sin makes us owe more to the Father. But you also said that Christ's obedience to the Father paid Christ's debt only, and not ours. So then who pays ours?
If your answer is "Nobody pays it -- the Father just forgave it," then my question still remains: where is the nexus between the sacrifice and the forgiveness? If Jesus wasn't taking care of the sin business on the cross, then what in the world was He doing there?
What you keep describing is a sacrifice that has no relationship to the sins of the people, forgiveness that has no relationship to the sacrifice, and vertical obedience (Christ to the Father) that has no relationship horizontally (to the brothers). It's a 3-way disconnect. You have Christ on the cross, but you don't have Him doing anything there for the problem of our sins. You have Christ obeying the Father, but you don't have that obedience bearing on the fact that we disobeyed the Father. You have God forgiving His people, but you have that forgiveness floating in isolation from the sacrifice and obedience of Christ (neither being necessary since, you say, God simply forgives). This is a wholly unscriptural position, and see successive posts.
In contrast to this, I'm saying 1) Christ's sacrifice accomplished payment for our sin, 2) the Father's forgiveness was made just by the sacrifice, and 3) Christ's obedience is counted as ours. In other words, Christ bore our sin, we bear His righteousness, and the justice of it all resides in the sacrifice of Christ (who is the new Adam).
(Continued...)
Do you deny that Christ bore our sins and paid for them in His death? Scripture would teach us otherwise: [all brackets mine]
ReplyDelete"Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows... he was wounded for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his stripes we are healed...
...and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all...
...who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people?
Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he [the Father] has put him [the Son] to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt...
Out of the anguish of his [Christ's] soul he [the Father] shall see and be satisfied; by his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous, and he [Christ] shall bear their iniquities....
...he poured out his soul to death and was numbered with the transgressors; yet he bore the sin of many, and makes intercession for the transgressors."
Isaiah 53 [brackets mine].
Christ "was delivered up for our trespasses" (Romans 4:25). He is "the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). In Christ's blood we are saved "from the wrath of God" Romans 5:9). "...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them... For our sake he [the Father] made him [the Son] to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him [Christ] we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Corinthians 5:19,21). Christ was sent *for sin*, and when God slew Christ as the Passover Lamb, He was condemning sin in that act: "By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh..." (There's one for the Sproul-bashers). And from the mouth of Peter himself, "He [Christ] himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed" (1Peter 2:24).
(Continued...)
(...continued)
ReplyDeleteSo -- Christ bore our sins. There is no getting around it. He bore them instead of us bearing them, and took our punishment in our place. He did this willingly, and it pleased the Father to pour His righteous indignation and wrath out against Christ instead of against us. That's what we just read. This is imputation, and that of the extra nos kind -- for the sins that Christ bore came from without Him, not from within Him. Christ bore *our* sins, and paid for them on the cross.
Extra nos imputation is the teeth in the cross of Christ. Believe it, proclaim it, and thank God for it, for by it have your sins been removed and your souls healed. As the Psalmist says, "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin!" Yet I think one must have a very low regard for the seriousness of sin, if he supposes that it can be simply swept under the carpet without accounting. Christ is our accounting -- and when you look to Christ in faith, that's what you're looking to.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteIf you want to understand my position better, than I recommend reading "Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement," including my comments in the combox thread there, because I address precisely these questions there.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
One more word here, just to head off the Pelagian charge again: No, Christ did not have to come. God could have simply condemned us all, and He would have been perfectly just to do so.
ReplyDeleteBut He didn't want to do so -- He loved us! So, by the decree of God, and according to His just nature, He determined to send Christ as a propitiation for our sins, so that He could justify us sinners without ceasing to be just Himself (Romans 3:23-26).
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteConsidering the nature of your latest reply, and the fact that it took a grand total of 9 minutes for you to read those 3 posts of mine and post that reply, I take it you're through with the interaction. Peace; and thanks for the conversation.
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteI read your comments, and from them it was obvious that you hadn't yet read my post ("Catholic and Reformed Conceptions of the Atonement") which I linked to above on May 25. So, I see your nine minutes, and simply point to the twelve days between May 25 and today.
If you want to quit, that's fine. But it is disappointing, because I'm still waiting to be shone why Catholics who believe Trent, and die in that state, cannot go to heaven. It seems like it is a very difficult thing for you to show.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteI read that article weeks ago. You've already linked to it before. I've been interacting with it, and trying to get you to do the same. My "Sproul Bashers" crack a few posts back, and the associated quote from Romans 8:3, was in reference to a page you'd linked within that article. You disagreed with Sproul's idea that God would say to Christ "God damn you" because of the sins Christ bore. And yet there's Paul, telling Christians in Rome that He sent Christ to Earth to bear our sins in His flesh, so the Father could condemn sin in His [the son's] flesh. That was me responding to your linked article.
Furthermore, the 3-way-disconnect challenge was aimed at your linked article. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I found your answers in the linked article thin and unsatisfying, and was hoping to get you to actually interact with some challenges to them, instead of merely linking back to them when challenged on them. So when you just linked back to the same article again, that's when I figured you had nothing more to add.
Bryan (if you're still reading this thread),
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with Anselm's Cur Deus Homo? I ran across it by accident a few days after our conversation here died. It is remarkable how thoroughly Anselm covered our topic of conversation. The work looked very familiar, as he dealt with almost every argument that showed up here.
The thing is, I think he basically took my part (although much more articulately than I did), and while many of your arguments showed up in his work, they appeared as the rhetorical objections of unbelievers and heathens, which Anselm soundly defeated.
If you are still interested, I would love for the two of us to interact with Anselm's Cur Deus Homo WRT the question of the nature of Christ's atoning work, and the question of what that thing is that we have faith in when we say we trust in Christ for our salvation. I would also be curious to hear what view Rome takes on Anselm and his systematic of the topic.
Charlie Long
Charlie,
ReplyDeleteSt. Anselm held the Catholic position on the atonement (he was a Catholic bishop). His position is, roughly, the one St. Thomas defended, and the one likewise that I have been defending both here and at CTC. So, if you agree with St. Anselm, then you're on the Catholic side of the atonement debate, relative to the Sproul penal substitution position.
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Bryan,
ReplyDeleteSince I heartily disagree, and believe I can demonstrate argument-by-argument how Anselm directly opposes what you've put forth here and in your linked article, it sounds like we'd have a lively discussion. Are you up for it? Here or elsewhere?
Charlie