The hard-core folks here on the blog may end up critical of me, but I do not see Catholicism as an illegitimate faith. Nor do I believe they possess a false gospel.
My attitude is pretty well summed up by something the pastor of my parents’ church in Decatur, Alabama said when Pope John Paul II died. The pastor of First Baptist Church in that small town told his congregation something very similar to this:
I am not a Catholic. I obviously disagree with the Catholic church about a number of things. But this pope who just died, John Paul II, was a great man. He was a great man and an outstanding representative of the Christian faith to people around the world. There are many people on this earth who know very little about Christianity other than what they may get from contact with the Catholic church. We should hope and pray that the next pope is as great a man as this one.
To which I say, Amen. And I don’t think we’ve done badly with JPII’s successor. Not at all.
November 5th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #1
I’m one of those hardcore folks, I guess. Nevertheless, two or three questions for you:
1) What is the gospel? And how does your definition exclude the Judaizers (assuming it does)?
2) Why aren’t you a Roman Catholic?
-TurretinFan
November 5th, 2009 | 2:35 pm | #2
Ghandi was a great man also and at times he spoke about Christianity so should we legitimize his faith as Christian as well? I think when we let our feelings overide truth it becomes a downward spiral. The truth is that very little of the Roman Catholic beliefs of salvation even resemble the grace of God we see in our Bible and when you add anything to grace you have no grace at all.
November 5th, 2009 | 2:45 pm | #3
With the previous two poster…he may have been a great man in a number of ways. Indeed, I think he was.
However…to equate Rome’s gospel to the Evangelical gospel is pretty uninformed I think.
Think what you will about JPII, admire him, in many ways he deserves that. But for heaven’s sake don’t let those feelings cloud good judgement.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #4
This may be too simplistic for some of the scholarly types here, but if you can say the Nicene Creed without crossing your fingers, I think you’re probably safely in the club. That doesn’t mean there isn’t plenty of room to disagree on serious issues, but Catholics believe in the same Christ I do, and I have yet to meet a Catholic who thought their salvation came through anything other than the mercy of God. We may disagree on what ramifications that has for us and our behavior, but we don’t disagree on who is responsible.
I liken it to driving. If I think my car is powered by an internal combustion engine utilizing pistons to move a driveshaft, and my wife thinks the car is powered by fairy dust, we will nevertheless both still be able to turn the key and move. God’s “magic” as CS Lewis might put it, doesn’t require our full understanding to work.
November 5th, 2009 | 3:11 pm | #5
I’m actually surprised that Hunter’s point of view didn’t come up sooner here, so I’ll ask the question TFan did another way, in the hope of gaining some insight myself in the breadth of the ecumenism some here at First Things share.
Consider this version of the pastoral speech Hunter has cited:
Why would this speech be any more or less compelling than the one Hunter cited?
November 5th, 2009 | 3:19 pm | #6
What are the OFFICIAL teachings of the Catholic Church?
-Man is lost in sin.
-Man needs a saviour.
-The Nicene Creed.
-Man cannot save Himself.
-People are saved by God’s grace through faith.
What is unchristian about any of the above?
November 5th, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #7
Frank – Unless I’m wildly-uninformed about Catholicism, I’d say there’s a significant difference between the Christology of the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Christology of the Roman Catholic Church.
One major point of contention for Evangelical Protestants with Mormonism is the person and deity of Christ. That tension is not there (again, assuming my knowledge of Catholic teaching is reasonably accurate) with Catholicism.
Curious to read the rest of the discussion.
November 5th, 2009 | 4:18 pm | #8
Josh hit the nail on the head. Sign your name to the Nicene Creed (I’d in fact expand it to the first four ecumenical councils of the church, the findings of which I’m sure we’d all agree on), and you’re my brother or sister in Christ.
In the end, when we ask ourselves “What is necessary to believe in order to honestly call oneself a Christian?” (to which we would probably say trinitarianism, deity of Christ, salvation from God by faith, indwelling of HS, with a few others, perhaps), can’t we say that many Roman Catholics believe these? And if so, are they not our brothers and sisters?
Then again, I am admittedly an evangelical with very strong Roman Catholic sympathies. If not for a few issues–both in theology and ecclesial practice–I’d consider joining them. That is to say, if they were a bit more evangelical, I might just sign up!
November 5th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #9
I fear that we as evangelicals too quickly assume the worst about all Roman Catholics, even projecting the worst abominations of the Popes from the 15th and 16th centuries onto men such as JP II or other modern Catholics. I don’t doubt that some in the RCC believe certain things are “required” in order to have true faith; that doesn’t mean all Roman Catholics believe that way. And I’m not naive enough to think that some evangelicals don’t add a litany of works to their grace at times as well. I don’t want to be generalized into their ranks.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:08 pm | #10
I’m glad that’s settled. Now that the Open Theists are rightfully known as Christians, we can move on to more important items, like ministry.
Right?
November 5th, 2009 | 5:21 pm | #11
Paul was mad at the Galatians, right?
And why? Was it because they had everything wrong? Well, no. It was because they had everything right…and then they added a little bit just to be sure. That whole circumcision thing.
Paul never said circumcision was wrong. In fact he had Timothy circumcised. But he did say this:
“Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you.” Galatians 5:2 NASB
Of no benefit…simply by adding one thing to Christ.
The issue isn’t that no Roman Catholics believe rightly. No doubt many do. But when the official teaching of the church is that you must add works to faith…well then that’s our problem.
So when I say that JPII was a great man. I mean it, but that doesn’t negate the fact that he taught and believed that we must add things to Christ’s work in order to make it really stick…well that’s his problem.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #12
Frank, the speech about the Mormon is an absurd comparison. The divergences between the Mormon faith and orthodox Christianity are extreme. We don’t need to document that here.
But if the line around here is that Catholicism does not fit into orthodox Christianity and THAT is what it means to be an evangelical, then I can’t play in that sandbox.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:32 pm | #13
Hunter,
If you look at Frank’s question as a tool to elicit an explicit articulation of where the line is–what kind of threshold has to be crossed before we reach the extreme of Mormonism–then why would you be offended by it?
Why not simply respond with the explicit articulation?
November 5th, 2009 | 5:33 pm | #14
“But if the line around here is that Catholicism does not fit into orthodox Christianity and THAT is what it means to be an evangelical, then I can’t play in that sandbox.”
So….since when has that not been the sandbox? It was Rome who anathematized the Reformers, no? Because they recognized that the two faith’s were incompatible, no?
Not trying to cause a fight or anything. I just don’t understand (as I’ve mentioned before) how you’ve come to see the two as essentially the same.
Dr. Beckwith has displayed the same difficulty and I don’t understand that either.
Can someone explain to me how “Faith alone” and “Faith plus works” are the same?
Or how “No merit of my own” and “Increases my merit” are the same.
Or or or …
Again, it’s not about that fight. It’s about honestly understanding each other.
And, incidentally, it really is a similar discussion as the one with Mormons, because, like Catholics, it has only been recently that Mormons had begun trying to talk Christians into believing that they too are merely another branch of orthodoxy.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:40 pm | #15
Daryl, I don’t the the comparison is even in good faith or good sense. The better comparison to Mormonism is Islam, not the Catholic Church.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:49 pm | #16
I am not Catholic, but it I feel I must defend the truth here on this VERY IMPORTANT issue. I know there are many Catholics who believe they must be “good” in order to go to Heaven, and by that they often mean that one’s good works must offset their bad deeds. There are many Protestants who believe the same things. Rather than looking at the worst possible representatives for a denomination or religion, we should be charitable and TRUTHFUL and look at what the religion OFFICIALLY teaches.
Catholicism does not teach that one must add to the Cross in any way that diminishes the Cross. (And btw, that’s an example of metonymy-one word represents something else; in this case I could say I do not believe I am saved by the Cross because I am saved by Jesus. Doing so, however, would violate the normal mode of expression. In a manner of speaking, it’s all the same). Catholicism teaches that as a man is being saved, his works are redeemed also. Thus, works are part of one’s salvation.
Yes, I said “being saved”. Paul and Peter used the phrase and so did the Early Church. I have been saved; I am being saved; I will be saved.
For those of you who argue that Catholicism is heretical but Calvinism is not, then I ask you: how is fatalism not heresy? Calvinism does not even believe in “faith alone”; Calvinism teaches that one is saved by election alone. Faith is only a result. This is not a red herring or non-sequitir. I cannot understand the mentality that says the concept of God redeeming us through ALL THAT WE DO-faith and works-is heresy, yet they have no problem with the idea of God arbitrarily deciding who goes to Heaven and who goes to Hell and calling it Gospel. What part of “whosoever” do you not understand?
If “the Gospel” is merely an opinion, relative to the one using it, then we cannot even have a meaningful discussion. If it has a clear meaning, then who has the authority to tell us what that is? Private interpretation is counter to the Church. You don’t have to be Catholic to believe that, but you do have to be catholic to know what I’m saying. The Gospel is for all people and it is ORDINARILY mediated by the Church. If one does not believe that the Church is an intrinsic part of the Gospel concept, then the Church is merely incidental. That idea, my friends, is definitely heresy. The Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth, not afterthought, not a novelty, and not something ad hoc.
There is no way I can defend EVERY Catholic. I don’t even believe all of Catholicism doctrines, but be reasonable and charitable and consider what the Catholic Church officially teaches. Simply because it does suit your Protestant tastes does not mean it is false.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:54 pm | #17
My last line above should actually say:
Simply because it does NOT suit your Protestant tastes does not mean it is false.
Sorry for the typo.
November 5th, 2009 | 5:56 pm | #18
Hunter,
Could you answer the first question? The one about what the gospel is? I think that might help move the discussion forward.
November 5th, 2009 | 6:09 pm | #19
The gospel is that Jesus Christ, the son of God without sin, suffered and died as an atonement for our sins and then prevailed over death in the resurrection as a sign of God’s power and faithfulness. If we claim Christ’s victory, he will claim us and we will be saved.
November 5th, 2009 | 6:12 pm | #20
Hunter,
My comparison is simply to recognize that until very recently, both religions were plain about not being evangelical Christianity, and evangelicals were plain about not being them.
What has changed in Catholic doctrine that makes them now within orthodoxy?
What is the significance of Trent? Even the current Pope recognizes that in order to be reconciled with evangelicals Trent would need to be re-written or abandoned.
Orthodoxdj,
No one is condemning individual Catholics or saying that they don’t believe. The issue is what the Roman Church teaches. And it is not in line with evangelicalism. Why the rush to say it is?
November 5th, 2009 | 6:13 pm | #21
Hunter,
And what if we believe that we need to add something to Christ’s work, just to make sure.
What then?
November 5th, 2009 | 6:19 pm | #22
Daryl,
The issue isn’t whether or not evangelicalism is totally compatible with catholicism. The argument is about whether or not Catholicism teaches a false Gospel. Those aren’t the same proposition.
November 5th, 2009 | 6:22 pm | #23
I’m glad that’s settled. Now that the Open Theists are rightfully known as Christians, we can move on to more important items, like ministry.
Next?
November 5th, 2009 | 6:23 pm | #24
BTW, Hunter: Richard Mouw disagrees with you. Have you read his work on considering Mormons as brothers in Christ? I wonder what your response to his work in that field would be.
November 5th, 2009 | 6:41 pm | #25
Thanks Hunter.
What do you mean by “claim Christ’s victory”? How does one do that?
And I’m kind of curious as to how you’d answer TurretinFan’s second question then: how does your definition exclude the Judaizers?
November 5th, 2009 | 8:06 pm | #26
Ortho,
Take a read through the posts, the whole thing has been about the gospel, not about generalities in Roman and Evangelical theology.
Whether or not adding things to Christ’s work is legitimate IS central to the gospel. The evangelical gospel says “No, you can’t do it and still have the gospel” the Roman gospel says “Yes, you must do it in order to have the gospel.”
This is not an argument on the periphery. It is the heart of the matter.
Again. Nobody here seems to be telling the Catholics to convert – although I wish they would :-), we’re just asking both sides to be honest.
Don’t call them twins. They are not.
Incidentally. If they were twins, Rome wouldn’t be calling people to return back “home” would they?
November 5th, 2009 | 8:21 pm | #27
“Nobody here seems to be telling the Catholics to convert – although I wish they would”
Here, I’ll tell them: Catholics convert!
We all need to hear that. In fact, I hear it every week at church. That does mean, however, that a Catholic need cease to be Catholic.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:27 pm | #28
Wow. Just wow.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:28 pm | #29
I agree with Daryl. The “good news” of Christ was that salvation had come to the world, and the world could receive that salvation by looking to the cross and believing. The curtain tears open and God’s grace flows out. It really is as simple as that. The rest is just details. Baptism and the bread and wine are outward signs and seals of an inward change that has already taken place.
By contrast, the Catholic position requires that God’s grace flow through a series of mediators, first through Mary (not to mention all the other saints), then to the Pope, then to the church, then to the individual. And the individual must do particular things in order to win the help of each of these mediators (even denying the Assumption of Mary can land you in eternal damnation). This mediatorial system is a crucial idea, without which the concept of indulgences and the scandal of absolution-via-fighting-in-the-Crusades could never have been embraced.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:29 pm | #30
Frank, I can’t even imagine how one could see Mormons as orthodox Christians. Their view of the fall of man is nearly the reverse of ours.
Rebecca, I claimed Christ’s victory when I realized the necessity of my dependence on him for the forgiveness of my sins and the salvation of my soul.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:34 pm | #31
Typo again:
My last one should say:
That does NOT mean, however, that a Catholic need cease to be Catholic.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:34 pm | #32
Hunter,
In like fashion, the Catholic view of salvation is nearly the reverse of ours.
Faith plus nothing versus faith plus works.
Closer to Mormonism come to think of it.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:36 pm | #33
Mormonism – We are saved by grace after all we can do.
Catholicism – We are finally saved if we continue to do the requisite works of merit.
Evangelicalism – We are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.
Those first two sound more like each other than they do the last one.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:40 pm | #34
I am always amused when non-Catholics purport to tell Catholics what we believe.
November 5th, 2009 | 8:48 pm | #35
Daryl-
You are misrepresenting Catholic teaching. I know of no Catholic who believes that his/her works merit salvation. Catholics believe, as James teaches, that faith without works is dead. We also believe that any good works we perform are solely the result of God’s grace. So, while Catholics do believe that works are necessary for salvation, the works in question are ultimately God’s works, not ours. God, and God alone, receives the glory for the works performed by his children.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:04 pm | #36
“So, while Catholics do believe that works are necessary for salvation, the works in question are ultimately God’s works, not ours. God, and God alone, receives the glory for the works performed by his children.”
What you just said is that, yes indeed, works, done by God’s children, are necessary for salvation, which is what I’ve said.
Evangelicalism says that there is nothing whatever that you can/must do to be saved except repent and believe.
Do those things sound the same?
I’m not trying to demonize you, I’m just trying to get some here to stop saying that the two are one and the same.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:05 pm | #37
O.k., Daryl, so you reject the Book of James then, right?
November 5th, 2009 | 9:16 pm | #38
James 2: 14-26 (NIV)
“What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, “Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
But someone will say, “You have faith; I have deeds.”
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.”
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.
You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless[d]? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.
In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2&version=NIV
November 5th, 2009 | 9:27 pm | #39
Amen, Steve. “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
November 5th, 2009 | 9:31 pm | #40
Daryl,
What you said isn’t true.
You offered, Evangelicalism says that there is nothing whatever that you can/must do to be saved except repent and believe. This is not what evangelicalism says.
So, you repent. You believe. Do you do works? For if you do not … does that not reflect on your faith? When Jesus said, “Many will say they are mine, but I will not know them.”
Will your protestation of belief be enough? I say that evangelicals (and Catholics) would agree … the answer is no.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:40 pm | #41
Hunter –
So you’re saying that Richard Mouw’s view is unthinkable, yes? That what he has said about Mormonism ignores all the real reasons there are Mormons and that Mormonism stands apart from faith in Jesus?
I just want to make sure that I understand what you’re saying before I say what I think needs to be said here.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:41 pm | #42
Stephen Dillard –
Are you Roman Catholic?
November 5th, 2009 | 9:41 pm | #43
Hunter … I hope you’ll consider answering my questions.
As to folks who use the Nicene creed as their definition of the gospel – obviously that leaves in Pelagians, Monothelites, Nestorians, and so forth. And if you go a few more ecumenical down the road – where do you stop?
Are you prepared to place iconophiles or iconoclasts (pick your 7th ecumenical council) outside the camp?
But the problem is that while Nicea may be good for excluding a variety of obvious heretics, reciting Nicea doesn’t seem to require that a person trust in the mediatorial work of Christ alone for salvation. Or do you disagree?
November 5th, 2009 | 9:42 pm | #44
Daryl –
Take a breather. You’re going the wrong way.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:51 pm | #45
Turretin, I’ve got several balls juggling here. Frank, say what you feel needs to be said.
November 5th, 2009 | 9:58 pm | #46
Mr. Turk-
Indeed, I am.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:01 pm | #47
The book of James does not endorsed a works-based salvation, but rather true faith, which compels a person to live a life of good works. That is why Christ could say to the man dying next to him, “This day you will be with me in paradise.” There was no “process” of justification, but merely a choice to have faith in Christ; a faith that would have resulted in good works had the criminal lived long enough to do them.
Paul said that salvation is not through the law (meaning the Jewish law), but through faith. Why then would we dare add to that faith a new law of rituals, observances, prayers, and good deeds as requisites for the reception of God’s justifying grace?
November 5th, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #48
Stephen Dillard –
Have you ever heard of the “Treasury of merit”? If so, what is it — that is, where does it come from, and of what use is it?
November 5th, 2009 | 10:06 pm | #49
“The book of James does not endorsed a works-based salvation, but rather true faith, which compels a person to live a life of good works.”
Uh, I think you need to reread James.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:08 pm | #50
Hunter –
I don’t think what I’d like to say is relevant unless you think Mouw is maintaining an untenable position regarding Mormons.
Please let me know what you think.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:11 pm | #51
TFan –
I think you’re going to make a great point which no one is going to understand. However, carry on.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:22 pm | #52
Frank –
I believe that Mouw would consider his approach to Mormonism akin to Fuller Theological Seminary’s late-1990s approach towards the Worldwide Church of God. See the following –
http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=40
Best,
Brian
November 5th, 2009 | 10:24 pm | #53
Mr. Turk-
Yes, I know what it is, and all of the “merit” in question is directly attributable to Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, and nothing I or any other Christian does. We are nothing without Christ.
This is what you and others like you fail to grasp. As Christians, we are only capable of performing good works because of Christ’s sacrifice. In the end, God receives all the glory because every good work we perform is accomplished because of His grace and mercy.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:25 pm | #54
“Evangelicalism says that there is nothing whatever that you can/must do to be saved except repent and believe.”
How do I know that I have repented and believed correctly?
The Rev. Wesley says one thing; The Rev. Calvin says another. In fact, the post-Second Great Awakening Evangelists, e.g., Graham, Sunday, etc., all seem to require that I walk down the aisle and say the sinner’s prayer. What precisely is the right thing to do?
But there’s nothing that I can do, apparently, of the Reformed folks are right. So, now I’m really confused. There’s nothing I can do, and yet I’m supposed to do something.
Who’s in charge with this whole “getting saved” thing, anyhow? Why is John MacArthur a better source than Joseph Ratzinger?
November 5th, 2009 | 10:27 pm | #55
Stephen:
I’ve read it many times. It’s one of my favorite books. The context makes it clear that James’ is forming his argument against those who believe that mere knowledge is enough to enter the kingdom. i.e. “even the demons believe…” This is a misunderstanding of true faith, which is a personal, covenantal thing. Not just knowledge but a turning of the soul toward God.
Paul says we are justified (i.e. declared righteous) by faith in Christ, meaning that Christ’s work is what actually saves us and not, of course, the act of faith itself, because the whole concept of Christian faith is an acknowledgment that we can do nothing on our own and we are throwing ourselves upon God’s mercy.
James uses the word “faith” in a more limited way than Paul, who assumed a more holistic definition. That is why he says, in seeming contradiction to Paul, that we are not saved by faith alone. James had to do this because of heretics who were preaching that salvation is through knowledge alone.
Thus, when James says that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness, he is forced to add that this “faith” was completed by his works. Which is to say that his actions revealed a true turning away from the world and toward God; not, as Catholics hold, that he would have missed out on God’s grace if he had not been given the opportunity to do those works. But contrary to the argument of James’ opponents, Abraham was truly required to obey God, and he would have faced consequences for his false faith had he disobeyed.
It is like Jesus approaching the adulteress woman and declaring, “Your sins are forgiven. Go, and sin no more.”
November 5th, 2009 | 10:32 pm | #56
“The book of James does not endorsed a works-based salvation, but rather true faith, which compels a person to live a life of good works. ”
Says who?
I read it and it doesn’t say that. Oh, I see, you assume a particular theology, and then try to squeeze James into that. Why don’t you begin with James and Jesus (remember him?) and then try to squeeze Paul into them? Prioritizing your narrow interpretation of Paul and trying to squeeze the rest of the NT into that proves nothing.
You’re going to exclude a whole group of Christians from salvation for this incredibly lame and question-begging reason?
Everyone was wrong until the 16th century?
At least the Mormons have the balls to say the church fell into total apostasy soon after it began. You guys want to have it both ways, claim continuity with the historic church and then pick off those things you don’t like based on a doctrine–sola scriptura–that no one believed until Luther.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:33 pm | #57
As for merits.
The concept of the “treasury of merits” should be a focal point of any discussion about the difference between Protestants and Catholics. Whether or not you want to say that the merits of the saints were only made possible by God’s grace (as is faith), the fact remains that Catholics are instructed to rely upon the merits of the saints to compensate for their sins. This means that Christ’s meritorious death and resurrection was not sufficient payment for our sins in all circumstances, and that additional merit is required.
Can we find common ground on this issue? I doubt it.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:39 pm | #58
“James uses the word “faith” in a more limited way than Paul, who assumed a more holistic definition. That is why he says, in seeming contradiction to Paul, that we are not saved by faith alone. James had to do this because of heretics who were preaching that salvation is through knowledge alone.”
Nice theory. May be true. But it’s extra-biblical. You’re employing as a way to resolve an apparent contradiction scripture. Catholics do it differently. Unless you know for sure that your way is the only possible way to reconcile these passages, then you cannot exclude the Catholic interpretation as “unbiblical.”
Evangelicals, your arrogance is astonishing.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:43 pm | #59
Thomas:
I didn’t realize you were resurrected from the grave, great Doctor of Theology. But whatever the case…
I never said I was excluding you or anyone here from salvation. I’m not making that judgment right now. What I am saying is that a lot of folks up to the 16th century kept drifting further and further away from the teachings of the early church. The “treasury of merits” for instance was undeniably a later invention of theologians. The church during those centuries was not as monolithic as you seem to assume. There were many disagreements, and many divisions (the Waldensians, for instance, or even the entire Eastern church, which takes a different approach from both of us).
I am not squeezing my theology into James. I am reading him in the context of the specific issue he is addressing, and then secondarily in the context with the rest of Scripture, with which I believe he is in agreement.
You can go on croaking about who has balls and who hasn’t. I don’t care to see what’s in your shorts, to be quite honest, as I am too busy trying to keep my eyes on Christ and his word.
November 5th, 2009 | 10:49 pm | #60
BTW, Thomas, you have some nerve accusing me of arrogance for explaining the Evangelical position on the EVANGEL blog. It is not I who have come to convert you, but you who have come to convert me.
But that is neither here nor there. It happens that I am in fact certain of my interpretation. I am a student of literature who takes the interpretation of texts very seriously, and I can see no other way to do justice to these scripture verses. Unlike Luther, I never saw a contradiction in the first place. To me, it’s very obvious that “faith” is being used differently in James than it is by Paul. If you disagree, you are free to disagree, but do not accuse me of arrogance.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:46 am | #61
The last time I looked, the Catholic Catechism upheld the doctrine of purgatory.
If the doctrine of purgatory is true, Jesus did not atone for all of the sins of a believer.
If Jesus did not atone for all of the sins of a believer, He can not be the Messiah.
How can a church that believes that Jesus is not the Messiah be a true church?
November 6th, 2009 | 8:16 am | #62
Jeff-
You obviously know nothing about Catholicism. Nothing at all.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:37 am | #63
Hunter wrote: “Turretin, I’ve got several balls juggling here.”
I can relate to that, I truly can. Nevertheless, I hope you’ll seriously consider the matters of the definition of the gospel and what your reasons are for believing what you believe.
I hope you won’t consider my rude for suggesting that putting together a definition of the gospel is something that ought to be a priority among those juggled balls.
November 6th, 2009 | 9:49 am | #64
Stephen Dillard:
Your criticism of Jeff is a bit off base. First of all, of course, the doctrine of Purgatory plainly is a Roman Catholic doctrine, so it is absurd to claim that Jeff knows “nothing about Catholicism.”
But beyond that, you haven’t seriously dealt with his objection. Are you familiar with the purpose of Purgatory in Roman Catholic theology? One of the (many) definitional statements is this one:
CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema. (Trent, Session 6, On Justification)
The doctrine of Purgatory, as defined in the council of Trent, is there for the discharge of the debt of temporal punishment of sins.
That’s significantly different from the Reformed and Biblical view that the Blood of Jesus Christ cleanses us from all sin (1 John 1:7).
Roman Catholicism does not present itself as explicitly denying that Jesus atoned for all sin of believers, but it works out to a practical denial of that doctrine.
Perhaps before you accuse Jeff of knowing nothing you ought to more carefully investigate the matter.
November 6th, 2009 | 10:28 am | #65
As someone who grew up on the Roman side of the Tiber, I was really enjoying this blog and hoping it could open some interesting discussions between Catholics and Evangelicals.
But the wanton displays of ignorance — and arrogant presuppositions — regarding what “the other side” REALLY believes has left me cold.
I’ll be taking you off my RSS feed now.
Blessings.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:13 am | #66
Stephen –
I appreciate that you are also angry at “others like me”. That clarifies a lot for me in this discussion.
I am actually thinking of a specific document, INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA, and not what someone else told me about “them Catholics”.
Here’s an interesting paragraph from Chapter 3 of that document:
Let’s think about that for a second, because I think it falls into the definition you have provided — but it changes what it appears you mean by what you have said.
I take it that you meant that only Christ’s work is the basis for justification and merit. But this document changes the definition of “Christ” from “the man born of a virgin who died at the hands of Pilate and was raised from the death” to “all those who follow him in faith; the whole church at all times”.
Before we ask the question whether these two things are transparent and without contradiction, let me ask this question: when you say “Christ”, do you mean what they meant at Nicea in the Nicene Creed, or do you mean this defintion — which is “Jesus in spiritual union with all who have faith in Him?”
November 6th, 2009 | 11:28 am | #67
May I ask one of the Evangelicals to define what they mean by works?
I am confused because a few posts here have stated, and I paraphrase, all a Christian must do to be saved is have faith and repent. How is this “do”ing that real Christians must do not a work?
Please help me to understand what you mean by work and I will try to understand how any of what you preach follows Christ’s commandment to love through clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty and so on.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:12 pm | #68
May I ask one of the Evangelicals to define what they mean by works?
Anything someone does in order to improve their standing before God. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a response worked by the Spirit (and coming from God’s grace) or not.
I am confused because a few posts here have stated, and I paraphrase, all a Christian must do to be saved is have faith and repent. How is this “do”ing that real Christians must do not a work?
Because the response of repentence and faith is simply trusting in Christ’s righteous life and sin bearing death alone for our status before God. It’s saying, “Nothing I do counts toward my standing with God, but only what Christ did for me in history.”
I will try to understand how any of what you preach follows Christ’s commandment to love through clothing the naked, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty and so on.
Those are Christ’s commandments to us, and the Spirit graciously works those acts of obedience in those who are being saved—in those who have faith—but they do not help our standing before God. When we stand before God, he sees us included in Christ’s perfect life and curse-bearing death, and declares us righteous based on that and nothing more than that.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:43 pm | #69
Doesn’t theological orthodoxy, particularly soteriological ,turn admittance into heaven into the ultimate SAT exam?
November 6th, 2009 | 3:11 pm | #70
John:
I would define work as anything we do which expresses the love of Christ and our obedience to his commandments.
The question is not what constitutes “work”: it is what value (if any!) these works have in our final justification.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:33 pm | #71
Tfan: I gave my own definition of the gospel about 45 comments ago . . .
November 6th, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #72
Of course Catholics teach a false gospel. It is very easy to prove.
Judaizers required circumcision as requirement for justification.
Catholics require baptism as requirement for justification.
Paul would call us fools for even entertaining the idea that Catholics are a type of Christian church.
The real problem few people understand the Bible, the Reformers, or what they should believe.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:09 pm | #73
Christian — my answer would be “no”. Let me give you two reasons why I would say that.
[1] There is absolutely no question that the church has both the authority and the obligation to defend the actual faith which was actually proclaimed by Peter and the disciples at Pentecost. Every letter by Paul reflects this; the Gospels reflect this. It is an undeniable fact that the Gospel itself is a proclamation of an objective fact through which objective results are rendered. In that, objectively someone either has the faith that this Gospel declares is the faith of the righteous, or they do not.
[2] There will be sheep and goats in the final account; some will be condemned to hell. And in describing who these people are, the Bible tells us that some of them said they had God’s power, some of them thought they did good works, some of them drew many to Christ — but none of them are saved. So there is some dividing line between those who will be saved and those who will not — and my suggestion to you is that there is something we can use to distinguish them in this life in order that we may then preach the Gospel to them.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:42 pm | #74
Turk…if I believe the right stuff I go to heaven, if I don’t then I’m screwed? It looks like heaven is entered by giving the right answer. Yuck! Doesn’t God judge the sum of all our life, not our religious knowledge. I equate ‘Sola fide’ to salvation by knowledge, which in my opinion has some gnostic undercurrents.
November 8th, 2009 | 2:51 pm | #75
TurretinFan – Thanks for doing the spade work for me.
rebecca –
“May I ask one of the Evangelicals to define what they mean by works?”
Anything someone does in order to improve their standing before God.
“I am confused because a few posts here have stated, and I paraphrase, all a Christian must do to be saved is have faith and repent. How is this “do”ing that real Christians must do not a work?”
Because the response of repentence and faith is simply trusting in Christ’s righteous life and sin bearing death alone for our status before God. It’s saying, “Nothing I do counts toward my standing with God, but only what Christ did for me in history.”
There seems to be a contradiction here.
November 8th, 2009 | 2:52 pm | #76
I would heartily employ the Protestants explaining to Catholics what Catholic theology is to at least read through the relevant sections of the Catechism of the Catholic Church and perhaps, if you’re serious about understanding what we believe, let an actual Catholic explain what we mean by the words we use instead of projecting Protestant meaning on them.
Purgatory does not imply some deficiency in the work of Christ. It is final sanctification. No one can enter Heaven without being perfectly holy. We all know we won’t be perfectly holy when we die, so sometime between when we die and when we enter heaven, God will have to make us holy. That’s purgatory. It’s like St. Paul talks about with our works being tested by fire and everything that’s not Christ being burned away and some being saved as if through fire.
Catholics do not believe we are saved by works. The Catholic Church very clearly teaches that the death of Christ is the one and only thing that could make mankind acceptable to God. Whatever role works play, they are not the thing that justifies us before God.
We Catholics firmly believe the story of the good thief on the cross who entered paradise with Christ because he believe Jesus to be the Son of God. We do believe, and I think statistics would bear this out, that in the lives of most Christians, other things will happen. These things would include good works, reception of the sacraments, eating lunch and paying the electric bill, but none of those things justifies us before God, as the story of the good thief clearly illustrates.
We certainly differ with our Protestant brothers about how exactly works figure into the Christian life, but they are not the basis on which we are justified.
If you’re going to continue to claim these things, please back it up with some kind of concrete reference to Catholic teaching that can be discussed. Otherwise we’re just discussing what you think Catholic teaching is, which isn’t necessarily what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
November 8th, 2009 | 3:48 pm | #77
There seems to be a contradiction here.
Look at Frank Turk’s definition of work rather than mine. Apparently I forgot my thinking cap the day I answered the question. He defines a work like this, in case you can’t find it:
anything we do which expresses the love of Christ and our obedience to his commandments.
The point is that none of our works (as defined above) contribute toward our standing before God. Even our faith.
We are justified through faith, not in the sense that our faith contributes something toward our justification (it doesn’t), but only in the sense that faith looks to the one thing that does contribute something (actually everything) to our standing with God—Christ’s perfectly obedient life and sin-bearing death.
November 8th, 2009 | 4:36 pm | #78
Christian –
I need to clarify something before you get too far down the “yuk” path, Christian: the Arians anathematized at Nicea were actually extremely nice people. They weren’t pornographers or anything.
Why did they get sent packing? Wasn’t it because of what they believed and not what they did?
November 8th, 2009 | 6:54 pm | #79
I should, however, thank Frank Turk for citing a particular bit of Catholic teaching with which I can, thankfully, now interact.
Though I know the question wasn’t directed at me particularly, I’ll hazard an answer to Frank’s question on behalf of Catholics of good will everywhere.
We do believe that the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Christ is the head and we are the body. As such, according to St. Paul, we are able to make up what is lacking in the sufferings of Christ. That is, our sufferings, trials and tribulations are united with Christ’s and, when offered up for such a purpose, those sufferings can be made effective, purely by God’s grace, for the salvation of mankind.
That is to say that, whenever one of us Christians suffers, that suffering can be used by God in union with Christ’s sufferings to benefit the whole Church — past, present and future.
This is not to say that the sufferings of Christ which paid the price for our salvation are not unique, it is only to say that God has been so gracious as to let our sufferings help in a way beyond our capacity to understand.
It brings to mind the end of C.S. Lewis’s greatest novel, “Till We Have Faces.” At the end of that book, the main character is brought before “the gods” to give her complaint of all the ways she had been mistreated in her earthly life. She is granted to see, much to her chagrin, how her sister, who she felt was given preference at every turn in her life, was actually carrying burdens for her in ways she couldn’t see. Her sister was, in effect, obeying St. Paul’s command to bear one another’s burdens without knowing she was doing it. Charles Williams explores this idea quite a bit as well.
All that is to say that the idea of rank and file Christians adding merit through their sufferings is neither unbiblical nor foreign to Protestant thought.
November 9th, 2009 | 12:32 pm | #80
Hunter – I appreciate reading your posts. I think you have a very balanced opinion of Evangelical and Catholic relationships.
For those of you who talk about the Catholic church preaching a “different ” gospel, I think you should do a couple of things:
1. Speak with some Catholics who really know their theology, and see if they believe that works EARN salvation. They do not believe that. They take an approach on how works factor into the Christian life that I do not agree with, but they certainly do not think that they WORK for their salvation.
2. Recognize that your logical progressions are not infallible. As a pretty Calvinist guy, I feel like a de-emphasis on God’s sovereignty makes it as if we earn our salvation. But, I know that my Arminian (if you can forgive the false dichotomy) friends do not believe that they earn their salvation, and so I do not consider them to be heretics. I feel the same way about by Catholic friends.
3. Stop pretending like this debate can be simplified to a four point logical proof. To do so proves your ignorance of all sides involved, and ignores the wealth of minds far sharper than yours and mine combined that have worked through this topic before.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact