Now I will admit, having been a Christian for a somewhat short time as an adult, I’ve some unfamiliarity with the ins and outs of Christian controversy. Jared points tangentially to one which has puzzled me quite a bit. So I thought I’d put the question to the chorus here.
Protestants and Catholics (apparently) frequently point to the other as being in the wrong about the whole faith vs works question. But it seems to me both sides are in complete agreement.
Protestants accuse Catholics of emphasising works, for you are saved by faith alone.
Catholics will reply, yes that’s right. You are saved by faith, and faith without works is dead … so there had better be some works in your life and witness or when you face the Lord at the Judgement seat it will be hard for you.
Protestants, I think, will also agree with that counter.
Which leaves the disagreement where exactly? For it seems to this neophyte that on this issue there is no division.
Parenthetically, it seems to me one of the things with a blog like Evangel might accomplish is to separate the doctrine from the adiaphora in the divide between denominations.
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:36 pm | #1
You have hit upon an issue that divides even protestants from one another. (Church of Christ vs. Baptists.)
Let me point out that feuds between cousins can be the fiercest fighting of all.
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:44 pm | #2
Oh brother.
Do we really want to start this? Joe — I’m asking for an administrative ruling before this unfolds in the way it always, inevitably, and forever will unfold.
November 2nd, 2009 | 8:54 pm | #3
The important documents before Joe gives his ruling:
The current Catholic Catechism
Luther’s 95 Theses
Westminster Confession of Faith
You may have other favorite items to add.
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:25 pm | #4
“You may have other favorite items to add.”
My personal favorites: Matthew 25:31-46 and John 5:28-29.
But overall I tend to agree with Frank Turk, in a way. An extended argument on the nature of justification could change some minds in some contexts–but not, I think, in this context. Those who write for or even read First Things would probably have their minds made up on this issue already, would they not?
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:26 pm | #5
“I’m asking for an administrative ruling before this unfolds in the way it always, inevitably, and forever will unfold.”
But maybe this is a bit too pessimistic?
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #6
Frank Turk has a great point: this is a super-touchy issue and if not handled delicately, may (or “will always”) end in explosion.
I would add to the “to-read” list the letters between Calvin and Sadoleto (http://www.amazon.com/Reformation-Debate-John-Calvin/dp/0801023904/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1257210223&sr=1-1) and the text of a conference held between Calvin and some Catholic priests (which I can’t remember what it was called, but it will be in most Calvin bios).
The Council of Trent and Vaticans I and II documents are also useful, if a bit lengthy.
Also exceptionally valuable is “Letters between a Catholic and an Evangelical” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0736909893/ref=s9_simz_gw_s0_p14_i4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=1YXSFY9BBPP4T8X6YZ77&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=470938811&pf_rd_i=507846), which hits some of the high points in a gentlemanly and clear fashion.
Having said all of that that, for whatever my two cents are worth (as a Protestant doing a dissertation on Jonathan Edwards at The Catholic University of America): there are many, many areas of overlap, but will always be fundamental differences that are not resolvable without one side giving in its core beliefs.
I would break down the major differences into at least three categories:
-justification: This is the fundamentally divisive one, and the one which must be resolved before dialogue can even be had on the other two.
For the Protestant, justification is applied to the believer by faith alone. That is, a Christian is “born again” when he or she believes the Gospel. True belief will then result in works, but the belief has to come first.
For the Catholic, justification is by faith and love (the new Pope is particularly clear on this point). That is, a Christian is “born again” when he or she believes the Gospel and responds positively in love. This combination of faith and love results in works. (And I think it’s obvious why we talk past each other so much on this issue…)
-intercession: For the Protestant, intercession is a personal and immediate relationship between the individual believer and the Triune God. (This is “intercession” in the context of salvation, not in the context of “intercessory prayer” which Protestants do, but which carries no salvific implications.)
For the Catholic, intercession is a personal and immediate relationship between the individual believer, the Triune God, through the Church. Or at least, the parts of the Church which are specifically given the authority to intercede- properly ordained Priests and Bishops, the Saints and Angels, and the Virgin Mary.
-authority: For the Protestant, the Bible is the supreme source of authority. This is not to say that general truths about God cannot be learned through nature, tradition, family, politics, etc, but the doctrine is that Scripture alone reveals the personal characteristics of God and His plan for salvation. The general truths available outside of Scripture are useful, but not sufficient or finally authoritative.
For the Catholic, the Bible, the Church hierarchy, and tradition form the three sources of authority, though of the three the Church holds a position of prominence, claiming the authority both to determine Canonical Scripture and to provide the proper interpretation of tradition.
Like I said, I don’t expect reconciliation any time soon…
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:36 pm | #7
Not to ignite the debate that everyone seems soooo excited to have… but I think you have seriously misrepresented the Catholic position on justification. It is not that works are evidence of a true saving faith (the faith without works is dead protestant view). They actually believe that justification is a process in which the person is made righteous and cannot enter heaven until that process is complete. How does it occur? Through the sacraments of the church! So, you are forgiven of original sin through baptism and must do penance (confession) to make up for sins after baptism, the eucharist actually imparts grace to you, etc. If you don’t fulfill these requirements as needed, then you will spend purgatory paying for your sins that have not been dealt with through penance or any of the other means that the church provides (such as indulgences which are still authorized btw). This is not fire and smoke. Christ died on the cross paying for the sin of all those who would but trust in Him. For the RCC to say that you are not forgiven by faith alone, but must be baptized and fulfull other sacraments, followed by time in purgatory, is to reject what Christ accomplished on the cross. Yes, they talk about it in crafty ways so as to deemphasize the differences, but in their own catechism it is very clear:
Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and baptism” (CCC, 977) and “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude” (CCC, 1257)
“If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. The Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives.’ It is through the sacrament of Penance that the baptized can be reconciled with God and with the Church” (CCC, 979-980)
References to Catholic teaching are from the from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which is the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church by the authority of Pope John Paul II (first published in 1992 with an English translation in 2006). I got it off the Knights of Columbus website.
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:52 pm | #8
“References to Catholic teaching are from the from the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) which is the official teachings of the Roman Catholic Church by the authority of Pope John Paul II (first published in 1992 with an English translation in 2006). I got it off the Knights of Columbus website.”
Umm, well, yes. . . and the Catechism gets it from the Bible. Just for a wee example: You quoted “Our Lord tied the forgiveness of sins to faith and baptism (CCC, 977).” I know it must be somehow wrong to appropriate John 3 in an evangelical blog, but there it is: “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). I mean, I know that when Jesus referred to water, He didn’t really mean “water,” but somehow the biblically illiterate Catholics went ahead and took it as “water.”
But I really don’t want to write more, because I am frankly confused regarding this entire blog space. I need help: Are these blogs supposed to be places where evangelicals talk to each other about subjects they think of importance (fine), or are they places for evangelicals and Catholics to argue about what divides them (again, fine, but I would really like to know so I don’t alienate people by sticking my nose in where it doesn’t belong). Any help?
November 2nd, 2009 | 9:57 pm | #9
The main disagreement seems to me to be:
1. Protestants see justification as carried out by God beforehand, something that is fully a gift of grace and not earned or deserved.
2. Roman Catholics see salvation as a process initiated by divine grace that is totally unearned and undeserved, and this grace carries one to the point of a final judgment by God that one is justified. The main difference is that Catholics think the justification by this point is deserved, because even though God by means of grace brought the person to this point it was still the person doing the acts by God’s grace. God judges the person as having lived a life (fully caused by God’s grace) that is fitting to reward with salvation.
So the main disagreement is over whether the divinely-graced acts constitute having deserved the final justification. Since (at least) Aquinas, Catholics have said yes. Protestants have stuck with the Augustinian negative on this question. Both emphasize that none of it could have come about without God’s grace, but they differ on whether such a process counts as deserving it.
There are plenty of more minor differences, some having to do with soteriology and some having to do with other things that are less central, but this seems to me to be the primary sticking point.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:04 pm | #10
Craig,
But overall I tend to agree with Frank Turk, in a way. An extended argument on the nature of justification could change some minds in some contexts–but not, I think, in this context.
I wasn’t seeking an extended argument … truly. Just an explanation that highlights real (not imagined) differences.
Anon,
I think you’re striving to find things at which you disagree and ignoring the larger part which is in agreement. But that’s just something of an outsiders perspective. For example, you point out that the Catholics point that Baptism is necessary … but didn’t Jesus insist that he too needed to be Baptised to John at the Jordan? Do you believe Baptism to be optional or just a formality? You basically are pointing out that the Catholic church doesn’t think so. I’m guessing that you also don’t think it is optional … and again … where is the difference?
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #11
Jeremy,
So is faith, then, by the Protestant definition something external to myself?
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:12 pm | #12
Coyle,
Thank you for your remarks. I think I have to look into your suggested reading. For
-justification: This is the fundamentally divisive one, and the one which must be resolved before dialogue can even be had on the other two.
For the Protestant, justification is applied to the believer by faith alone. That is, a Christian is “born again” when he or she believes the Gospel. True belief will then result in works, but the belief has to come first.
For the Catholic, justification is by faith and love (the new Pope is particularly clear on this point). That is, a Christian is “born again” when he or she believes the Gospel and responds positively in love. This combination of faith and love results in works. (And I think it’s obvious why we talk past each other so much on this issue…)
doesn’t help much. The distinction you makes seems claiming a distinction where there is none.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:21 pm | #13
Oh good heavens.
Please do not follow the rabbit down the hole marked ‘authority’. And PLEASE do not pretend that John 3 is indubitably about ‘baptism’.
Joe? This is really about to go badly. Please make it stop.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:29 pm | #14
And again before Joe makes his ruling, one of the reason so many people cannot make heads or tails of this discussion — and why others draw ridiculously-broad lines to make the distinctions — is a reason indicated by Norman Geisler in his book Is Rome the True Church?
I have said this before in this blog, but one thing which cannot be denied is that the church which birthed the Apostles’ Creed and the Anathasian Creed also birthed the Roman See and the Protestant Reformers. Those creeds are a common heritage. So we’re going to find ourselves agreeing on all those things (or most of them, if we are honest).
BUT
We will also find, if we stagger down this dark alley, that these creeds are not the be-all and end-all of theological exposition, and we will find ourselves in bitter disagreement over things which the writers of those creeds never considered. Those men, after all, were trying to preserve a faith and a Gospel under severe persecution — not a seminary or a system of government.
Please Joe: make it stop.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:31 pm | #15
“I know that when Jesus referred to water, He didn’t really mean “water,” but somehow the biblically illiterate Catholics went ahead and took it as “water.”
“But I really don’t want to write more, because I am frankly confused regarding this entire blog space. I need help: Are these blogs supposed to be places where evangelicals talk to each other about subjects they think of importance (fine), or are they places for evangelicals and Catholics to argue about what divides them (again, fine, but I would really like to know so I don’t alienate people by sticking my nose in where it doesn’t belong). Any help?”
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:33 pm | #16
Mark –
If I post an answer to your question, you will wish we had instead called out the Spanish Inquisition.
If you e-mail me at phrank aht iturk doht com I’ll send you an answer which should be sufficient for your question and will keep the interwebs from hosting another bloody mess.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #17
Here’s another word we should keep in mind: defenestration.
Let’s not start any defenestrations here as nobody wants to see anyone thrown out of the window.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #18
But I suddenly realized something: that other aspects of life also beckon, some of them quite beautifully. And that there is an easy way to “make it stop”: that is, simply, to stop.
So: farewell, Evangel folks. Perhaps we’ll meet up elsewhere.
November 2nd, 2009 | 10:44 pm | #19
Mark,
In retrospect, you’re right- I didn’t clarify differences over justification very well (Jeremy Pierce’s Augustine/Aquinas distinction is totally useful here). So let me try to clarify a bit.
If I can shamelessly steal from the “Letters between a Catholic and an Evangelical” book I mentioned, there’s a point where the conversation runs:
Evangelical: “Only when we realize the futility of trying to find acceptance with God through living a good life can we cast ourselves upon God’s mercy, trusting Jesus as our Savior.” (Letter 54)
Catholic: “You imply that obedience opposes faith, whereas Scripture says disobedience opposes faith.” (Letter 55)
This is really one of the best summaries of the difference between Catholics and Protestants I’ve seen (Gerhard Forde’s “On Being a Theologian of the Cross” is great on this too).
The difference between the Protestant view of justification and the Catholic view is not so much over sin as it is over virtue (love).
Protestants argue that there is nothing which the sinner can bring to the table in his own salvation. It is a gift freely given by God (hence sola gratia), and is only received with a faith (also provided by grace) that is opposed both to our sins and to our so-called virtues (and here we Protestants like to point to Paul’s strong language about his own attempts at righteousness prior to his conversion in Philippians 3:4-9).
So “Faith” is set against both sin (which seperates us from God) and our attempts to keep the law (which also seperate us from God).
Catholics, on the other hand, argue that justification is a process which begins with God but in which the cooperation of the individual (by means of love) is necessary. Grace, in this instance, is a perfection of nature (Aquinas said that somewhere), while for the Protestant grace transforms nature.
I’m not sure if that clears anything up or not, but I do hope it moves the conversation forward (and I really hope it does so without bitterness!)
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:36 pm | #20
“I think you’re striving to find things at which you disagree and ignoring the larger part which is in agreement. But that’s just something of an outsiders perspective. For example, you point out that the Catholics point that Baptism is necessary … but didn’t Jesus insist that he too needed to be Baptised to John at the Jordan? Do you believe Baptism to be optional or just a formality? You basically are pointing out that the Catholic church doesn’t think so. I’m guessing that you also don’t think it is optional … and again … where is the difference?”
I think baptism is something we are commanded to do by Jesus, so not optional in that sense. However, there is a difference between recognizing it as a command and saying it is necessary for salvation. I would say that any Christian who has not been baptized is in disobedience to Christ’s command and so should go and be baptized. That is different than believing that water baptism contributes to their salvation and so they are not forgiven of their sin until they are baptized.
You’re right that I was purposefully pointing out the areas of disagreement. Honestly, that is because I used to be wrapped up in the careful nuance that was meant to minimize those differences. I am purposefully trying to take all of that out and get at what it is that Catholics are actually saying and how it compares to the Biblical Evangel. That is, admittedly, difficult because Catholic theology is complex and it becomes especially confusing as they try to both hold to old doctrines (like the necessity of the forgiveness of original sin through water baptism for salvation) and new ideas (like the opening of salvation to those who are not even professing Christians and so have, of course, never been baptized). That complexity makes it more difficult to explain THE Catholic position…but it doesnt bring their theology any closer to the Biblical gospel.
Coyle presented the much more carefully articulated description of the two views on justification, however, and I would agree with his description of it.
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:37 pm | #21
Coyle –
That view intimates that Protestants don’t believe in virtue among human beings, and that’s patently absurd.
November 2nd, 2009 | 11:57 pm | #22
Frank: Joe? This is really about to go badly. Please make it stop.
You don’t think Mark’s question can be answered in way that doesn’t generate into fight? I think we can concede that Catholics and Protestants disagree on this issue. So why can’t each side just state their position without trying to convince the other side that they are wrong?
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:38 am | #23
So is faith, then, by the Protestant definition something external to myself?
No, but it’s only an instrument that lays hold of Christ’s work, and his work—and his work alone—is the basis for our salvation.
Our works are evidence of our faith, but do not provide any of the grounds for our salvation. Providing the grounds for salvation is what Christ has done.
November 3rd, 2009 | 1:32 am | #24
“Our works are evidence of our faith, but do not provide any of the grounds for our salvation.”
Rebecca, how can something be evidence for something and not grounds? If I say, for example, John’s confession provides evidence of his guilt but his guilt is not grounds for conviction, is that coherent? To be fair, I think both traditions–Catholic and Reformed–treat works as a necessary condition for justification, though for the latter the condition occurs chronologically after one’s initial justification. And for the former, works are not distinct acts performed for the purpose of justification, but rather, the living out of the divine life in the process of becoming more like Christ. So, in neither case do “works” save the Christian apart from God’s grace.
For anyone who cares, I explain the Catholic view of justification by using the theory of inscripuration as an analogy, here: http://tinyurl.com/ya3slqb
November 3rd, 2009 | 1:38 am | #25
“Protestants have stuck with the Augustinian negative on this question.”
I’m afraid that’s not quite right. See here–http://tinyurl.com/yjzfx3c–and here– http://tinyurl.com/ybsxwfd–and here: http://tinyurl.com/yac426y
November 3rd, 2009 | 1:52 am | #26
Anon #7: “Yes, they talk about it in crafty ways so as to deemphasize the differences …”
Anon #20: “Catholic theology is complex and it becomes especially confusing as they try to both hold to old doctrines (like the necessity of the forgiveness of original sin through water baptism for salvation) and new ideas (like the opening of salvation to those who are not even professing Christians and so have, of course, never been baptized).”
God is not bound by his sacraments. That is, there are ordinary (sacramental) and extraordinary means of salvation. If you are not baptized, you can still be saved (through Christ’s redemptive work) if God so chooses. But he has entrusted to the Church the administration of the sacraments, which are the ordinary means of salvation. I can see how this could look like a funny mix of old and new, but it is actually just old (she says, craftily).
November 3rd, 2009 | 8:31 am | #27
Frank Turk wrote: “That view intimates that Protestants don’t believe in virtue among human beings, and that’s patently absurd.”
This depends on what is meant by “virtue.” I was using it in the context of salvation, in which case Protestants deny that there is anything virtuous inherent to man by which we may cooperate in our salvation.
Of course Protestants believe in virtue in the context of society, family, friendships, etc. We just emphasize that there is nothing salvific about these virtues, and that they are temporary results of common grace.
November 3rd, 2009 | 10:51 am | #28
Another way to approach the question of justification is by asking what Romans 3:28 means.
November 3rd, 2009 | 10:56 am | #29
Joe –
My comment here will be #28. If you leave the thread open, and the comments continue on-topic (meaning:someone doesn’t start dropping filler in to exploit the comment count) by Comment #50 someone will be irate — most likely, advocates on both sides.
I won’t have to do anything. All I’m saying is that I have never once witnessed an internet exchange on this subject that didn’t find both sides launching nuclear-force polemics in very short order.
Maybe it will be different here. I’d love to be wrong.
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:08 am | #30
You should all look into Orthodoxy where this debate was never necessary. Of course “All good things come down from the Father of lights” and the most important response from us is “Lord have mercy.”
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:24 am | #31
Dr. Beckwith (and other Catholic readers),
Would I be right in saying that justifying works, in your system, are something that must be done by believer, in order to be finally justified, but which cannot be done apart from the grace of God making that possible?
The evangelical view is that faith is a gift from God, not something we muster up, and that, having been justified by grace through faith(that is, declared to be righteous based upon Christ’s perfect life, death and resurrection) we are then once and for all, justified.
Where works enter into the picture is that those who are justifed will then, as a matter of course, do those things which are pleasing to God. Some more, some less, some faster, some slower. But He will finish the work which He began.
So in the Catholic system, works are necessary for salvation. Not works only, granted, but not not works.
In the Evangelical system, works come from a grateful heart in order to demonstrate what has already been done.
Any disagreement on either side with what I’ve said about your side? Have I about got it right?
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:31 am | #32
The fundamental question on which the divide hinges is this: does Christ’s historic death and resurrection wipe out ALL our sins completely. Luther’s and Calvin’s answer was “yes.” Catholicism’s answer was “yes and no.”
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:37 am | #33
Anthony,
I guess that’s the question isn’t it?
In the Catholic view, it seems to me that having been justified, one can sin their way out of salvation.
Is that right?
In the evangelical view, you cannot sin your way out of anything eternal. God saved you by Himself and He’ll keep you by Himself.
Not to say that we believe that the Christian does nothing, but that everything hinges on what God does/has done, and nothing eternal ultimately hinges on me.
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:44 am | #34
I don’t have time to read all of these (I assume) very penetrating and intelligent comments. For me, it’s really simple. Protestants and Catholics agree on the NECESSITY of Christ, but they disagree when it comes to the SUFFICIENCY of Christ. I’m sure that’s already been hashed out here though…
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:47 am | #35
Dr. Beckwith wrote:
I hate to point out that this is a category error, but it is.
John commits a liquor store robbery and breaks the law. However, John is crafty — he wears a mask, so from a judicial standpoint he isn’t being prosecuted, but he is actually culpable for the crime. That is: he is objectively guilty, but not accused or being prosecuted.
If at some time in the future John has a change of heart and confesses, the basis for his conviction may be his confession, but the basis of his prosecution, and the basis of his guilt is the objective fact that the liquor store was actually robbed.
While John’s confession may be one kind of evidence against him, the reason there ought to be a trial at all is that there was a crime committed — the objective fact of wrong-doing for which someone is responsible for doing.
But let’s step back a moment: let’s say that John needs $10,000, which is why he considers knocking over the liquor store — he needs it to get medical treatments for his own cancer. When I find John standing outside the liquor store about to put the mask on, and I take him to the hospital for treatments and pay for them myself, when John thereafter says he was cured of cancer and acts like a guy who was cured of cancer, his confession didn’t heal his cancer: the intervention of me and the hospital cured his cancer.
In both cases, something objective happens involving John, but confession that one has received mercy is different than the confession that one has done wrong.
All reasoning by analogy has limits, but the limits of Dr. Beckwith’s analogy speak to the stacked deck he is dealing his conclusion from. It is his assumption that we what we do makes us who we are; I would content that the Bible says
the obversesomething different — that who we are is what makes us do what we do.That’s another serious distinction which I think Dr. Beckwith is downplaying: in the reformed tradition, works are a necessary consequence of faith, but in Catholicism works are a necessary vehicle for faith, or a necessary conduit for grace through faith. Works cause justification in catholicism; works are caused by justification in the Reformed view.
That’s an intersting way to see it, but we have to ask ourselves if works which appropriate God’s grace are not necessary in an ontologically-prior way that works caused by God’s grace and His justification are not.
Please excuse the edits above; the corrections were minimal — mostly spelling, and one choice of words.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:14 pm | #36
Dr. Beckwith,
If John’s confession was not admitted in court, it would not be grounds for his conviction, but it would still be evidence of his guilt.
Rebecca didn’t say “evidence for”. She said “evidence of”. If I see John walking free, that is evidence of his acquittal; it is not evidence for his acquittal.
Is this distinction new to you?
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:18 pm | #37
P.S. I suppose “for” is ambiguous. “Evidence for something” can mean the same thing as “evidence of something”: Evidence that demonstrates it.
Or, it can mean “evidence actually used as the grounds for something”.
So, if you meant it the first way, then ignore my correction of your preposition. The distinction, however, stands. And it does seem to be what you were missing.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:19 pm | #38
Daryl – “In the Evangelical system, works come from a grateful heart…”
I really hate to lengthen any rabbit trails, but I for one take issue with the “grateful heart” being listed as the primary cause of good works. Faith, born again, indwelling Holy Spirit – I think these are more in line with the cause of good works in the “evangelical system”.
1 Peter 1:22-23. “…since you have been born again…”.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:26 pm | #39
Paul,
No rabbit trail required,you’re right. I should have been more clear. What I was getting at that is that works come from a heart that is grateful to have been saved, not a heart that hopes it will be.
And you’re right, that’s not the primary cause, otherwise we become the primary cause for our good works and I’m certainly not intending to say that. That would be the work of God Himself, in the Person of the Holy Spirit, doing in us, what He said He would do.
November 3rd, 2009 | 12:54 pm | #40
Daryl & Paul,
Have you read Piper’s Future Grace? He makes an interesting point about thankfulness as a motivator: It rarely appears in Scripture. Far more often, the authors of Scripture encourage & motivate us by pointing us forward to God’s promises of future grace–not backwards in thanksgiving.
Yes, works come from a heart that has been saved (i.e. accepted by God, justified), and our hearts are certainly grateful.
At the same time, works come from a heart that hopes to be saved: “Saved” in the sense of the transforming, sanctifying, Romans 8:28-30 sense. In the Phil. 2:12-13 sense, of the on-going work of God in us.
And yes, that’s built on the foundation of our justification–on God’s acceptance of us as his children. He does this sanctifying work in the body of Christ, in those who have already been accepted & justified. It is not adding to the foundation–it builds upward from the foundation.
November 3rd, 2009 | 1:45 pm | #41
Rebecca, how can something be evidence for something and not grounds?
In the reformed view, faith is not grounds for justification either. Faith doesn’t provide; it receives.
That’s why you’ll hear reformed people talk about the “empty hand of faith.” And what that empty hand receives is the work of Christ on our behalf. It’s the work of Christ that is the sole grounds for our justification.
To be fair, I think both traditions–Catholic and Reformed–treat works as a necessary condition for justification
Actually, no. The Reformed view does not have works as a condition for justification.
So, in neither case do “works” save the Christian apart from God’s grace.
Which has never been the issue. The issue is this: Is Christ’s work alone, graciously counted to us, that provides the sole basis for our justification?
If it’s Christ’s work alone, then we can’t provide anything on which our justification is based.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:01 pm | #42
Mark, it’s not that faith is external to oneself. It’s that we couldn’t achieve it on our own, and thus we don’t deserve its consequences. The Catholic view insists that since God’s means of achieving it is our own process of sanctification, with our own grace-effected desires and choices as causes of our good works.
Jugulum, when Piper’s book first came out I was right on board. But over time, I’ve come to realize that he grossly oversimplifies that issue (as he does many). How often do the scriptures recall the Exodus in order to provoke continued faith in God on the ground of what he did in the past? Prophetic criticisms of Israel often involve chastisements because they are not grateful. You get these long presentations of all God did for them and then a condemnation of their ungrateful attitude.
Thankfulness and looking to the future aren’t as distinct as Piper makes it sound. What Piper is right about is his resistance to the idea that we’re somehow repaying a debt to God, returning the favor. But there are loads of examples in scripture where our service and good deeds are motivated by what God has done in the past. For example, we love because he loved us. We rejoice in persecution because of our thankfulness at what God is doing, and that is how we can even look forward in hope to what God will do.
The very structure of most of Paul’s letters is theological fact: application. Some of this is “this is true” so “live it out”. But part of the therefore is living in a way that’s in accord with recognizing the immeasurable good of what God has done for us. The very idea of living a life worthy of the gospel of Christ counts against Piper’s claim that we shouldn’t be concerned about the past as a motivator. The gospel certainly involves the future, but it’s hard to argue that no element of living worthy of the gospel involves recognizing how wonderful a thing God has done and serving him gratefully.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:13 pm | #43
Rebecca, how can something be evidence for something and not grounds?
This is easy, really. We run into things like this all the time. For example: The grounds for divorce may be an affair. Lots of things give evidence of the affair—late arrivals home, hang-up phone calls to the house—but they are not the grounds for the divorce. They simply point to the affair, which is the grounds for the divorce.
November 3rd, 2009 | 2:34 pm | #44
Jeremy,
If Piper is guilty of oversimplification here, the mistake is in minimizing the role of thankfulness–he is still right to draw attention the role of depending on future grace, and the emphasis it has in Scripture.
As I recall, he doesn’t deny a place for gratefulness; he points out passages where it is used. But I’m not sure if he deals with gratefulness as a motivator. So, you might be right–Piper might have oversimplified there. Or perhaps he included the nuance. Or perhaps he included gratitude as a motivator, but overly de-emphasized it.
Frankly, I don’t care much, for our purposes here. Here, I care about drawing out the role of dependence on future grace. Remove the sentence “It rarely appears in Scripture” from my post, and it stands.
P.S. I could argue with some of your examples. For instance, on persecution, both Matt 5:11-12, James 1:2-4, and Mark 10:30 point forward to what God will do & what we will receive, not backward to what God already did–and I’m not aware of any passages on trials & persecutions that point us backward. If so, it would still support the idea that Scripture puts more emphasis on future grace than on gratitude for completed past grace.
P.P.S. You said, “How often do the scriptures recall the Exodus in order to provoke continued faith in God on the ground of what he did in the past?” That is not an example of gratitude as a motivator. It is an example of using God’s past actions as a ground for faith in his future actions. As in, “See, God delivers! Trust him now.” Also, condemning Israel for lack of gratitude doesn’t mean gratitude is being used as a motivator. I’m not sure why you think that’s a counter to Piper’s point.
November 3rd, 2009 | 3:00 pm | #45
“but they disagree when it comes to the SUFFICIENCY of Christ.”
Depends what you mean by “Christ” and “sufficiency.” If you mean by “sufficient,” no other conditions, that can’t be true, since without the preaching of the Gospel, there would have been no Church. If Christ is “sufficient,” then why did Jesus have to have apostles and Scripture writers?
But if you say, “Christ works through his Church and his followers for the preaching of the Gospel and the sanctification of the saints,” Catholics believe that too. But we just think that Christ reveals himself and his power in a wider variety of ways including the sacraments, the priesthood, the Mass, and the communion of saints.
Years ago I remember seeing a book by John McArthur, “Christ is Sufficient,” and the telling the bookstore manager, “Wow, that’s nice to know. If Christ is sufficient, then I don’t need to buy that book.” :-)
November 3rd, 2009 | 3:10 pm | #46
Dr. Beckwith,
You are aware, no doubt, that the suffiency of Christ refers to the fact that Christ alone is necessary for salvation. Not additional works, or sacraments, or anything else done by man.
To say that preachers and Scripture deny His sufficiency is folly, of course, since those things are merely means by which we are informed of Christ.
Sacraments and Mass all manner of good works are, to the Catholic mind, requirements for salvation in the same way that Christ is. The difference is how much they contribute to salvation, not whether or not they do contribute.
And therein lies the chief distinction between Catholic and reformed teaching. In no way do my works contribute to my salvation.
November 3rd, 2009 | 3:13 pm | #47
“This is easy, really. We run into things like this all the time. For example: The grounds for divorce may be an affair. Lots of things give evidence of the affair—late arrivals home, hang-up phone calls to the house—but they are not the grounds for the divorce. They simply point to the affair, which is the grounds for the divorce.”
But you can’t have grounds without evidence. So, if I claim, “Adultery is grounds for the divorce,” but there’s no evidence of adultery, I don’t really have grounds.
But the grounds-evidence relation in justification is a little different, it seems to me. When someone says, “Rebecca’s kindness is evidence of her salvation,” if I were Protestant I would mean something like this: Rebecca’s salvation is grounded in Christ’s death and resurrection, and as evidence of those grounds being real, she exhibits kindness and charity. The Catholic, by the way, does not deny this. In fact, the Catholic would make a more ambitious claim, namely, that the sanctifying grace one receives at conversion literally changes you from the inside out, since you become at that moment an adopted child of the Father. You are, at that point, in the family, so to speak.
This is where our contrary paradigms clash. For the Catholic what follows is not “working for heaven,” as if one can engage tasks that are quantifiable and add up to “saved.” Rather, the Catholic participates in the divine life, faith working through love, so that one may become more like Christ. As the Catholic Catechism teaches:
November 3rd, 2009 | 3:21 pm | #48
“You are aware, no doubt, that the suffiency of Christ refers to the fact that Christ alone is necessary for salvation. Not additional works, or sacraments, or anything else done by man.”
The Catholic Church agrees, but it just doesn’t think that Christ’s body is not part of Christ. “He is the vine; we are the branches.” Any grace I receive through the sacraments is from Christ. Any work I do that sanctifies me is the consequence of Christ’s grace, as the Catechism teach (which I reproduce above).
November 3rd, 2009 | 4:06 pm | #49
“But you can’t have grounds without evidence. So, if I claim, “Adultery is grounds for the divorce,” but there’s no evidence of adultery, I don’t really have grounds.”
Man looks on the outward appearance; God looks on the heart.
God doesn’t have to see the fruit of the Spirit in order to know that we have the Spirit.
November 3rd, 2009 | 4:21 pm | #50
But you can’t have grounds without evidence.
Actually, you can. If there’s adultery, the grounds are there, whether you can prove them or not. And when you get evidence, it is simply pointing backwards at grounds that were already there before you had evidence. They are different things with different functions. That’s the only point I’m making with that illustration.
But the grounds-evidence relation in justification is a little different, it seems to me. When someone says, “Rebecca’s kindness is evidence of her salvation,” if I were Protestant I would mean something like this: Rebecca’s salvation is grounded in Christ’s death and resurrection, and as evidence of those grounds being real, she exhibits kindness and charity.
But when we speak of justification, we’re speaking of God’s declaration about me, not yours or anyone else’s. What “counts” toward his declaration of me as righteous? When God declares me righteous, what does he look at? He looks at Christ’s work in my place: his sin bearing death and righteousness fulfilling life. And on that basis and that basis alone, he declares me righteous.
My exhibition of kindness and charity don’t play a role in my justification.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:13 pm | #51
Dr. Beckwith, you wrote:
“…the Catholic would make a more ambitious claim, namely, that the sanctifying grace one receives at conversion literally changes you from the inside out, since you become at that moment an adopted child of the Father. You are, at that point, in the family, so to speak.”
Adoption and new birth are hardly uniquely Catholic doctrines. Except I would take out “so to speak” because it suggests that my adoption may not be secure.
“Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life.”
I would be interested to see the Scriptural support for these teachings.
You say that we have been adopted into God’s family, but that we may then merit for ourselves (and others!) further grace. If it is merited, how is it grace? And if I have been adopted into God’s family, how can I not have eternal life?
Or does “meriting for myself and others the graces we need for sanctification and eternal life” mean something other than what it appears to mean, namely earning and deserving?
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #52
>>Depends what you mean by “Christ” and “sufficiency.” If you mean by “sufficient,” no other conditions, that can’t be true, since without the preaching of the Gospel, there would have been no Church. If Christ is “sufficient,” then why did Jesus have to have apostles and Scripture writers?<>But if you say, “Christ works through his Church and his followers for the preaching of the Gospel and the sanctification of the saints,” Catholics believe that too.<>Years ago I remember seeing a book by John McArthur, “Christ is Sufficient,” and the telling the bookstore manager, “Wow, that’s nice to know. If Christ is sufficient, then I don’t need to buy that book.” :-)<<
He must have chuckled at your silliness… :)
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:16 pm | #53
sorry, the previous post didn’t include my answers for some reason
>>Depends what you mean by “Christ” and “sufficiency.” If you mean by “sufficient,” no other conditions, that can’t be true, since without the preaching of the Gospel, there would have been no Church. If Christ is “sufficient,” then why did Jesus have to have apostles and Scripture writers?<>But if you say, “Christ works through his Church and his followers for the preaching of the Gospel and the sanctification of the saints,” Catholics believe that too.<>Years ago I remember seeing a book by John McArthur, “Christ is Sufficient,” and the telling the bookstore manager, “Wow, that’s nice to know. If Christ is sufficient, then I don’t need to buy that book.” :-)<<
He must have chuckled at your silliness… :)
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:18 pm | #54
grrr – talk about sanctification :)
I mean “no other conditions”. Preaching of the Gospel is not a condition of salvation. The preaching of the Gospel does not save. This is proven by the mere fact that God could save without using any human means if He so chose. God ordained from all eternity that He would use the preaching of the Gospel as the way in which people could hear the good news of Christ and put their trust in Him (Rom 10:13-17)
Yes, but sanctification and salvation are not the same thing. Sanctification is the result of salvation, not the means of it.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:22 pm | #55
“Actually, you can. If there’s adultery, the grounds are there, whether you can prove them or not.”
You’re confusing “know the evidence” with “evidence.” When I say “no evidence,” I am referring to the absence of real stuff external to me, whether I know it or not. So, the absence of evidence (as I mean it) means you have no grounds.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:23 pm | #56
“This is proven by the mere fact that God could save without using any human means if He so chose.”
Agreed. Including priests and the communion of saints. So, we’re back to square one.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:46 pm | #57
“Yes, but sanctification and salvation are not the same thing. Sanctification is the result of salvation, not the means of it.”
I see your point, and once held it myself. I do think, though, that the evidence is more ambiguous than you think. My own view is that the reason why the evidence seems clear to many is because their meta-theory–Reformed soteriology–is able to provide plausible ad hoc explanations as to why apparently contrary passages can be assimilated into a Reformed framework. But, let’s suppose we set aside that framework (or what I call “methodological Protestantism,” and see what happens).
Here, for example, is an excerpt from Return to Rome:
Once I ceased approaching the biblical text with methodological Protestantism, it was nearly impossible for me to get forensic justification from the teachings of Jesus. At the Last Judgment, for example, the difference between the sheep and the goats is between what they did and did not do (Matt. 25:31–46). There is no indication that Jesus is thinking of the sheep’s “works” as “evidence of justification.” But rather, these works serve in some way as the basis on which his judgment of their eternal fate is made. It would be absurd, for example, for a judge in a court of law to tell a guilty defendant that his guilt was not based on the defendant’s actual deeds for which he was being prosecuted, but rather, because the deeds are evidence of the guilt he had before he had actually engaged in the deeds.
Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 16:27, “For the Son of man is to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay every man for what he has done.” In Revelation 22:11–12, John quotes Jesus as saying, “Let the evildoer still do evil, and the filthy still be filthy, and the righteous still do right, and the holy still be holy. Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.” In Matthew 19, Jesus connects the possession of eternal life (or salvation) with keeping the commandments, selling everything one owns (as he applied it to his questioner), and leaving everything including one’s family if necessary.
Couple these with Matthew 5, and the richness of Jesus’s teachings on salvation comes out even clearer:
It is the bearing of fruit, the hearing and acting on Christ’s words, the doing the will of his Father that constitute the life of faith, a life likened by Jesus to a house that could fall if not adequately constructed to withstand severe adversity. In John 14, Jesus tells his followers a bit of what it will mean when he says, “because I live, you will live also” (v. 19). He states, “In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you. He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him” (vv. 20–21). The Gospel of Mark recounts these words of Christ, “If any man would come after him, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:34b–35—). In Mark 4, Jesus explains the parable of the seeds in which he tells his listeners of those who receive the word “with joy,” but it does “not take root” and thus “they fall away” immediately “when trouble or persecution arises.” (vv. 16–17). He also tells of “the ones sown on the good soil: they hear the word and accept it and bear fruit, thirty and sixty and a hundredfold.” (v. 20).
Mere imputed righteousness seems like the furthest idea from what one finds in these and other sayings of Jesus. What one finds is an active faith by which God’s grace gives us new life (not just new status), though there is a responsibility of obedience on our part to remain faithful, bear fruit, practice charity, and persevere. It is only later in the Pauline and non-Pauline Epistles—as the Church’s doctrines begin to develop—that the People of God receive clarification on the role of God’s grace in the life of Christian obedience. This is what I call the journey of justification.
Consider first, the passage in Romans (4:1–8) that is often cited by Protestant authors as the definitive verse establishing the forensic doctrine of justification:
The Reformed interpretation of this passage is that St. Paul is teaching that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to us because of our faith in Christ, just as God reckoned (or imputed) Abraham righteous because of his faith in God. Because the reckoning is a gift and thus not something owed or earned, the imputed righteousness received by the believer cannot be the consequence of the believer’s works. That is all true, if the totality of justification is mere imputed righteousness. But the passage does not say that, and the corpus of St. Paul’s work, as well as the writings of other New Testament authors, do not say it either.
If one looks at the wider context of Romans, what St. Paul seems to be saying in chapter 4 is that the works of the Mosaic law do not forensically justify, in the sense that one can accumulate enough works in order to please God, just as one would raise enough cash in order to pay off a debt to a creditor. Remember that the context of Romans concerns the relationship between Jewish and Gentile Christians, the former of which were suggesting to their Gentile brethren that obedience to the Mosaic law—especially circumcision—was a necessary condition for entrance into the Body of Christ. So, when St. Paul writes of “works” in the context of Romans 4 he is writing about the requirements of the Mosaic Law (or “works of the law”), including circumcision. He is not denigrating works per se, as we shall see below. He is, in fact, critiquing those who see obedience to the Mosaic Law as a means by which God will owe them in exchange for their works. But that’s not the Christian Gospel.
Abraham was reckoned righteous precisely because he acted in faith and thus became righteous as a consequence. But Romans 4 does not say whether this is a once-in-for-all forensic imputation of righteousness, which is the Protestant view. For the Scriptural quote in verse 3—“Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness”—is from Genesis 15:6, in which we are told that Abraham believed God after the Lord had promised him numerous descendants. Yet, James 2:21–24 states that Abraham’s faith justified him years after that incident when he obeyed God and attempted to offer his son Isaac as a sacrifice (Gen. 22:1–19). The text claims that when Abraham performed this work “the scripture was fulfilled which says, ‘Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness’; and he was called a friend of God” (James 2:23). However, the Book of Hebrews teaches that Abraham was a man of faith chronologically prior to the incidents referenced in Romans (Genesis 15) and James (Genesis 22): “By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go” (Heb. 11:8). As Richard A. White writes:
Thus, it seemed clear to me that in order for it to be unreasonable for one to dispute the Protestant interpretation of Romans 4, the text would have to unequivocally state that Abraham was reckoned righteous at some decisive moment and yet remained inherently unrighteous, which is the Protestant doctrine of forensic justification. But it does not say that.
Consider this example. If a jury declared Fred not guilty, it would not logically follow that it was also declaring that Fred is inherently innocent, though he in fact may be inherently innocent. Nothing, therefore, about a defendant’s inner state of being (whether he is in reality innocent) follows from the legal declaration of his innocence. On the other hand, if Fred were to become inherently righteous as a consequence of an intrinsic change in him because of God’s infused grace, a just God would have warrant to also legally declare him righteous.
So, then, the real question is whether St. Paul and the other non-Gospel New Testament authors teach that the entirety of justification is mere imputed righteousness that occurs once and for all. The answer at which I arrived was “no.” The following is a brief encapsulation of my reasoning, which unfolded and crystallized over a several-month period of reading and reflection.
In Romans 5:19, St. Paul writes, “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous” If Adam’s sin had real ontological consequences for human nature—“many were made sinners”–as this passage clearly indicates, then Jesus’s death and resurrection has real ontological consequences as well—“many will be made righteous.” It seems, then, that original sin and infused grace are a package deal. This is why it seems to me that St. Paul can sternly reject the value of works for justification apart from one becoming a “new creation”: “[F]or in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal. 3:26–27). “For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail; but faith working through love” (Gal. 5:6). “For neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation” (6:15).
Although St. Paul certainly refers to justification as a past event (Rom. 5:1–2; 5:9; 8:24; 1 Cor. 6:11), he also presents it as a continuing process (1 Cor. 1:18; 15:2; 2 Cor. 2:15), as well as one that has not been fully achieved (Rom. 2:13; Gal. 5:5; 1 Cor. 3:15; 5:5; 1 Tim. 2:15; 2 Tim. 4:8,18)
Moreover, works done in faith by God’s grace contribute to our inward transformation and eventual justification. St. Paul writes in Romans 2:
St. Paul writes to the Colossians that Christ “has now reconciled” them “in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present [them] holy and blameless and irreproachable before him, provided that [they] continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel which [they] heard, which has been preached to every creature under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister” (Col. 1:22–23). St. Paul tells the Philippians to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Phil. 2:12–13). He teaches the Galatians that “for he who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption; but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life.” (Gal. 6:8). In his second letter to Timothy, St. Paul writes that “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith,” and consequently, “there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will award to me on that Day, and not only to me but also to all who have loved his appearing” (2 Tim. 4:7–8). In this passage final justification is awarded for keeping the faith and persevering, but these are connected to a certain sort of inward change, the love for Christ’s appearing.
Thus, one does not find in St. Paul the sharp distinction between justification and sanctification that one finds among Reformed writers. In fact, the passages we have covered seem to indicate that justification includes sanctification. Here are a few others from the Pauline corpus that seem to support this understanding as well:
What about other New Testament writers? In James 2 we are told that justification is not by faith alone once and for all:
Some Protestant writers claim that this passage from James is not inconsistent with forensic justification, since the works spoken of here are the effect of the cause of saving faith. But, as Baptist New Testament scholar Paul Rainbow points out, “In vain do we search in James 2:14–26 for any statement of a causal relationship between faith and works or between righteousness and obedience. What jumps out from the material is a thrice-state avowal of the instrumentality of justification, that is ‘by works’ (. . . Jas 2:21, 24, 25).” Other Protestant writers argue that James is addressing the public display of one’s salvation by one’s works in order to show evidence of one’s salvation. That is, to “justify” it in front of others. But that’s an implausible reading, since James’ focus is clearly on God’s justification of the Christian and not on public displays of righteousness. After all, the story of Abraham and Isaac occurred in a place isolated from the general public. Rainbow correctly points out that “the drift of the passage is to present human beings before God in good favor.”
It seems to me that James is indeed a problem if one maintains a forensic view of justification. But if one brackets that view and opens oneself to the Catholic view—that justification is the result of infused rather than imputed grace—then one need not think of “works” as activities by which one earns heaven as if one were appeasing a creditor in a debtors prison. Rather, a Christian’s good works are performed in order that the grace that God has given us may be lived out so that we may become more like Christ. As I have said, the purpose of “good works” for the Catholic is not to get you into heaven, but to get heaven into you. The Catholic already believes that he is an adopted child of God wholly by God’s grace. For the practicing Catholic, good works, including participating in the sacraments, works of charity, and prayer, are not for the purpose of earning heaven. For good works are not meant to pay off a debt in the Catholic scheme of things. Rather, good works prepare us for heaven by shaping our character and keeping us in communion with God so that we may be “holy and blameless and irreproachable before him” (Col. 1:22).
We might say that St. Paul, the most “systematic” of New Testament authors, most keenly and distinctly lays out the relationship between grace, faith, works, and salvation, as when he tells the Philippians (in a passage already quoted) to “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12–13). But this teaching is present not only in the epistles of Paul and James; it is found elsewhere in the New Testament. Consider just these few (but representative) samples:
Once I abandoned methodological Protestantism, I could not find the substance of the Reformed view of justification in my reading of the New Testament without artificially forcing the text into Protestant categories. To be sure, I was fully aware how Protestant theologians made their case, and I was capable of following their reasoning. But I no longer found their case convincing. Moreover, the Reformed distinction between justification and sanctification, though seemingly defensible in light of certain biblical texts when isolated and explained by Reformed theologians, just could not be sustained in light of the entirety of the New Testament canon. Add to this the historical novelty of the Reformed doctrine of forensic justification as well as the development of sacraments, practices, and doctrines in both the Eastern and Western Churches that were totally oblivious to the Reformed view, and it seemed to me that Protestantism’s view of justification had an enormous burden that it could not meet.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:51 pm | #58
Ah…no…What I meant by that (as I’m sure you know) is that God graciously uses the preaching of the Gospel to save, even though He didn’t have to, but the Gospel itself does not save…but, you are right, in a sense we are back to square one.
November 3rd, 2009 | 5:52 pm | #59
Sometimes I think this debate is like the old beer commercial: “Tastes great!” “Less filling!” Tastes great!” On and on.
Someone posted that Orthodoxy does not have this debate. I agree. It’s like Macs and PCs. There are very few viruses for Macs because something (I’m no computer expert)about their design keeps them free from many viruses. Orthodoxy is like a Mac. Many problems of the Western/Augustinian framework just roll off like water on a duck’s back. Catholics and Protestants mostly operate in the same framework; they just come to different conclusions from the same data. For example, both hold to the Augustinian view of original sin. From there many Protestants posit individual election as the means by which one escapes the trap of original sin. Catholics argue for Sacraments, particularly Baptism, as the means by which original sin is removed. Both affirm the original sin doctrine. They go off in wildly different directions after that. Orthodoxy does not hold to the Augustinian view; thus, there is no framework problem.
To be a Christian is to have faith and participate in the life of the Church. Synergism isn’t a dirty word. Do works contribute to my salvation? Absolutely; after all, isn’t my salvation a dynamic rather than static process? Can I not grow from faith to faith? Are there not rewards in Heaven? None of this is a problem if we understand that these are in the framework of theosis; that is, I am not meriting anything. I am PARTICIPATING in Christ, and doing so IS salvation.
November 3rd, 2009 | 6:41 pm | #60
Dr. Beckwith,
In looking at the real breadth of NT teaching on salvation, it seems to me that Catholicism’s view of justification has an enormous burden that it still can not meet.
And I read through your book excerpt, but perhaps I’m missing it in there somewhere: Can you point me directly to the scriptural basis that shows I can “merit for myself and others the graces we need for sanctification and eternal life”?
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:01 pm | #61
If I can beg further indulgence from all the folks who have written such thoughtful posts on this subject, how does a Wesleyan/Arminian view fit into all of this. Is the distinction the same as that of the Reformed tradition, or does it differ? If so, does it fall closer to the Catholic view (minus sacraments) or the Reformed?
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:06 pm | #62
To Frank Turk. I get your trepidation on this issue. There are a lot of screamers in this world, on all sides of this issue, and they all seem to congregate in comment threads. But I’d like to point out that the posts so far seem to be polite and genuinely concerned with teasing out clear distinctions rather than simply talking past each other. Besides, if this blog cannot produce a thoughtful discussion of the relationship between faith/works and salvation without degenerating into a firestorm, I see little reason for its continued existence.
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:27 pm | #63
You’re confusing “know the evidence” with “evidence.” When I say “no evidence,” I am referring to the absence of real stuff external to me, whether I know it or not. So, the absence of evidence (as I mean it) means you have no grounds.
Okay, let’s go with this, then: What is the objective (or real) “stuff” that provides the foundation for God judging someone as justified?
The reformed protestant says it is Christ’s objective work: his sin bearing death and righteousness fulfilling life. Nothing more.
Not our faith, for faith is receptive. Faith looks to and rests in the objective work of Christ. By it’s nature, faith cannot contribute anything.
Not our works, because, for one, Christ’s perfect fulfillment of righteousness in our place is enough. There is nothing our works could add.
And second, because in this life, even our Spirit-worked works are not perfect. They could never stand as a foundation for a rightful declaration of our righteousness.
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:39 pm | #64
If I can beg further indulgence from all the folks who have written such thoughtful posts on this subject, how does a Wesleyan/Arminian view fit into all of this. Is the distinction the same as that of the Reformed tradition, or does it differ? If so, does it fall closer to the Catholic view (minus sacraments) or the Reformed?
Someone else may be able to answer this better than I can.
One difference is that W/A may have faith serving as grounds for justification. Instead of Christ’s righteousness being counted as our righteousness, our faith is counted as our righteousness. In that view, faith does contribute something to our justification.
I’m not sure exactly where that puts it on the continuum between the Catholic view and the reformed view.
November 3rd, 2009 | 7:44 pm | #65
Dr. Beckwith,
For all the texts that appear to say we will be justified by works, there are many more (from Christ and the apostles) which clearly state no one will be justified by works. Either the Bible’s view of salvation is incoherent, or one of us is wrong.
I will finally and simply point out that the name of this blog is Evangel, or good news. I take heart in knowing that there is indeed good news in God’s totally unmerited saving and sanctifying grace to me in Christ, and no good news, merit, or salvation for me in my works.
November 3rd, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #66
Sigh….. I’m not a very good teacher, apparently.
I would never want to rob you of your confidence in Christ and his power to save. So, if it’s a choice between Protestantism and nothing, I hope and pray that you continue to grow closer to our Lord.
Blessings,
Frank
November 3rd, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #67
I’m surprised you don’t know where it’s found in Scripture. It is in that same apostolic letter that includes the parameters of sola scriptura, the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible, a detailed account of the philosophical and theological bases for Trinitarianism, definitions of supralapsarianism and infralapsarianism, and the phrases “total depravity,” “unconditional election,” “irresistible grace,” and “limited atonement.” If I’m not mistaken, you can only find that apostolic letter in the Bible that rests in night-stand drawer of each room in the White Horse Inn. :-)
November 3rd, 2009 | 11:31 pm | #68
Good heavens Dr. Beckwith, do you really equate Scriptural basis with “exactly spelled out in a single verse”?
Your whole list there, with the possible exception of supra and infralapsarianism defined, are soundly (and fairly easily) found in Scripture, although not in a single quotable verse.
Let me give you another example. Show me the verse the plainly states that Ahitophel was Bathsheba’s grandfather. Can’t do it can you? But it still is plainly scriptural and easily proven from Scripture.
For a former president of the ETS I’m constantly amazed at what you claim not to know about evangelical theology.
November 4th, 2009 | 1:14 am | #69
I find it suspicious that the example of John and the Liquor Store has been overlooked in this discussion, and the point he refutes is somehow taken as unassailed.
And I confess: here at post #68, the exchange has not devolved into a shouting match. Kudos all around.
November 4th, 2009 | 1:22 am | #70
I suggest the Book of Titus for you to find that out.
It seems none of the Fathers of the first 3 centuries needed that — I wonder why we do?
I’m torn between Hebrews 1 and John 1 — let’s go with both.
Wow — so all theological terms must be lifted as word labels from the NT? I’m surprised we can speak in English at all about theology …
November 4th, 2009 | 1:23 am | #71
Daryl:
This is what Jeff said:
My point, in response to this, was your point in response to me: such things are not the result of merely citing Scripture.
I read every word people write. And I respond accordingly. Your point, with which I agree, is beside the point. (BTW, the little smiley face means I’m funnin’ a bit, to paraphrase that great southern Baptist, Jethro Clampet). :-)
November 4th, 2009 | 10:50 am | #72
Dr. Beckwith,
“such things are not the result of merely citing Scripture.”
Even if one needs to use multiple Scriptures, it should be the result of citing Scripture. If it isn’t, then what is the warrant to believe it?
I realize, of course, the the warrant for you may well be something along the lines of “The Magesterium of the Church has taught that with authority”, which is fine, I disagree, of course, but it’s fine.
What’s not fine is claiming that the Catholic and Evangelical gospel are essentially the same, which you seem intent on doing. I know, as an evangelical, that that is an incorrect conclusion, and it seems to me that to all the other Catholics around here, it is also an incorrect conclusion.
Why are you so quick to attemp to reconcile the two? And if they can be so easily reconciled, then why cross the Tiber, in either direction?
You have said that you’d rather someone stay Protestant rather than leaving a church altogether. That seems to me to be seriously out of line with Rome (I could be wrong, feel free to correct that), and from the Evangelical point of view (mine at least) leaving the Roman church for no church is like leaving the pool to dry off in the lake.
Having said all that, it seems to me that in order to pursue dialogue between Catholics and Evangelicals, as the original post seems to say, we need to admit up front that we believe very different things. And that’s, sometimes, what you seem so unwilling to do, which strikes me as really odd, if not unfaithful so whichever side you claim to be a part of.
November 4th, 2009 | 11:29 am | #73
Dr. Beckwith,
I wasn’t asking for a proof text, but for the scriptural basis for the doctrine you posited, namely, that we can merit for ourselves and others the graces we need for sanctification and eternal life.
It was (and is) an honest question. I want to understand how you reconcile “merit” and “grace.”
Was your tongue-in-cheek answer meant to suggest that the verses you cited describe merited grace?
Does grace mean something in Catholic theology other than undeserved favor and blessing?
November 5th, 2009 | 8:26 pm | #74
[...] Maybe it’s due to the fact that Francis Beckwith and I share the same birthday, but when he says, after a long explanation (comment #56), “…one does not find in St. Paul the sharp distinction between [...]
November 6th, 2009 | 12:07 am | #75
I am very disappointed with Beckwith’s defense of his beliefs. It is good that he is no longer a Protestant. St. Paul reported about those who were led astray by the doctrine of demons and the traditions of men. It appears Beckwith is such an example.
Simply stated:
Christianity + paganism + Papacy = Catholicism.
Thus a clever sophist will always point out what we have in common. While a born-again God fearing Christian will expose the differences between Catholics and Protestants. Jesus requires us to worship in spirit and it truth. Thus Catholicism with its paganism, phony sacraments, purgatory, Marian dogma, and Jesuit sophistry is yet another heresy in a long line of heresies.
Cheers,
George
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact