One of the things that has surprised me in the discussion here about whether or not there is a dividing line between Roman Catholics and Protestants in general (as opposed to the differences between Presbyterians and Baptists, for example) is what I would call the “concession speech”. Here’s my version of the concession speech (so I cannot be accused of taking someone else to task for it):
I know a lot of Catholics that I like – they are all decent fellows, let me say. It turns out we share a lot of moral reasoning together, and we want the same things out of society – we want safety for our families, and the right to earn a living, and we want to go to the place of worship of our choice when it’s open (maybe even Saturday night! How’s that for “emergent”?!), and we want to use the name of Jesus as the shibboleth of our point of view.And honestly – I wish more [I’ll say Baptists, but you fill in your denom/nondenom there] were more like them. They are serious people, very earnest in their faith practice and in their concerns about the way of the Cross. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to call them “not Christian”. It must be ignorance or something worse.
Which, of course, we have seen several version of over the last few days.
And you know what? I’m completely on-board until we get to the last two sentences. I do know a lot of Catholics I like. Most of them are decent fellows, let me say. We do share a lot of moral reasoning, and I would even go one further and say that many Catholics I know are far more serious about their moral reasoning than many of the Baptists I know. In many ways, they want for our social order what I want for our social order – and let me be clear that I want for them what I want for myself socially – life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if we may use the short form here and not be defenestrated. I would never deny them their time and place of worship, and I wish many of my Baptist church-mates were more like them in many, many ways. I wish Baptists were more actually-serious about what they believe rather than, well, the way we are as a clan.
And let me say this as well: I wish more Baptists were actually Christians.
This is the part of the discussion which, of course, gets by a lot of people. The defenders of Catholicism think that because I think (to use a specific example) that what the Catechism and all the allegedly-infallible paper trail of the Catholic Magisterium ultimately teaches is a false Gospel, I think all Catholics are lost and all Baptists (again, for example) are saved.
As we say in my neck of the woods: pheh.
Listen: the root problem here is that people are lost. It’s a problem that goes back to the first man who did what he did in pure disobedience and not because he was deceived. It goes to his son who killed his brother because God rejected his offering of the fruit of the vine for the offering of the blood of the first born. It goes back to a hard-hearted people who, in spite of God showing them a rather impressive series of miracles, decided that they wanted to be a nation like all the other nations. The root problem is that people are lost, and in many cases, they don’t even know it.
And if that is the root problem, then what we are looking for is any and every solution to that problem. But let’s be clear here: it’s only a solution if it solves the problem, but not if it only makes us feel better about the problem. You know: atheism addresses this problem because it denies the problem whole-cloth – so it’s not a solution but a distraction. So the likelihood that there will be more than one solution is low – because this is a rather complex problem which can be stated in a ridiculously-simple way: people are lost.
But here’s what the concession speech wants to do: it wants to make a statement which both sides can agree to and call that the solution. So the concession speech wants us to believe that what makes someone a Christian is something like this:
I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds; God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made.
Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who proceeds from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; who spoke by the prophets.
And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
And this is an interesting tactic – to use the Nicene Creed as a unifying document. But let me suggest something about that creed which this view overlooks: the Nicene Creed was not intended as a unifying document.
The way it originally ended was like this:
And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion —all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.
Those who want to use this creed as the basis for their concession speech have to grasp first that the creed was not the means by which the universal and apostolic church all held hands and sang the Greek version of “Kumbaya”. It was the means by which the church was separating itself from egregious error. Schaff puts it this way:
… in this, as in every other of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the question the Fathers considered was not what they supposed Holy Scripture might mean, nor what they, from à priori arguments, thought would be consistent with the mind of God, but something entirely different, to wit, what they had received. They understood their position to be that of witnesses, not that of exegetes. They recognized but one duty resting upon them in this respect—to hand down to other faithful men that good thing the Church had received according to the command of God. The first requirement was not learning, but honesty. The question they were called upon to answer was not, What do I think probable, or even certain, from Holy Scripture? but, What have I been taught, what has been intrusted to me to hand down to others?
The point of the council, then, and therefore of the creed which springs from it is to cast off error and proclaim only the truth.
But this effort has one limitation: the context of the questions being considered. This is why Nicene orthodoxy is simply not a rigorous enough tool to determine what it false from what is true in our faith: the scope of what it is considering is too narrow to answer all the questions. That means that the Nicene Creed is not a concession speech meant to unify all kinds of diverse people, but a symbol of the church – a shibboleth for a certain time and place which excludes a certain type of error.
So before we finish up our concession speeches and call off all the theological wrangling and haggling and reasoning and just call it a day in which the differences between Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are simply in-house debates, let’s be a little more rigorous in what we are demanding from ourselves, and more honest about what those before us have said and done. They were clear that many people are lost, and need to know it without any quibbling. There’s no question that those who fall outside the confession of the Nicene Creed cannot be Christians – but to say that this is the only test is anachronistic at best, and misses the point of that creed in particular, and misses the point that many people are lost, and that there is only one name under Heaven and on Earth by which they must be saved.
Related posts:
November 6th, 2009 | 11:30 am | #1
Isn’t the point of the minimalist (the Creed is enough) that having the right theology or being right does not save you by itself, but it is a sign that your beliefs are hopeful? The Creed is so harsh (and exclusive), because if you make the error they are anathematizing you are worshiping a different God. If you say you love Jesus, but you end up loving Jesus of Hacienda Heights (I once met, name tag and all, Jesus of Disneyland), that is not going to cut it.
So some of us have decided that if you are Creedal, that you are pointed at the right Jesus. If you are trust Him only for your salvation, you are “in” to the extent that the humble man will assume you are a Christian.
We do not, thank God, make the final judgment, but we will trust your self-report for granting you the label.
That does not mean any other errors are not very serious . . . I would like to “do” more than go to the New Jerusalem when I die. Because I love God, I want to love Him properly. . . In this sense, errors about God (like open theism) are much more potentially serious than errors about saints and sacramentalism. (From your point of view, I suspect I make both.)
One can after all believe and trust in the right God while still believing that the Eucharist is not a “mere” symbol and that the dead can pray for you as the living do . . . even if one should not.
If on the other hand, you are trust Jesus of Hacienda Heights, you are doomed or Jesus who is not fully God or Jesus who has one nature. The nature of the Jesus we love and adore is all important as is the nature of God.
Of course, getting the “right” God is necessary, but not sufficient for salvation.
Nor does the NC just let any old sincere Church in. . . I greatly admire many of the private lives, public testimony, and social policies of those I know in the Mormon Church, but the doctrine of the Church itself is non-NC. So . . . you get the point.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:39 am | #2
Let me stress: even having the right NC beliefs does not make you a Christian. You must be “born again” . . . the seed of God is within (I John 3).
And again John points it best: “Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may know that we are in him: 6whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.”
November 6th, 2009 | 11:41 am | #3
Well done, Frank. And John Mark.
There are more ways to be lost, Horatio, than are covered in the creed.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:42 am | #4
Wow! Very well put! I especially liked your first “concession speech,” and I think you’re right that the last two sentences are the problematic ones.
I think one of the reasons we’re so tempted to blur the lines between Catholics and Protestants is because we so often blur the lines between the Law and the Gospel. If the standard by which we judge is the Law, then of course Catholics and Protestants look a lot alike; a comparison we can even occasionally extend to include Mormons, Eastern religions, and even some types of Islam.
But, if the standard we use to judge is the Gospel, then the differences are much clearer, because they are much more fundamental.
November 6th, 2009 | 11:50 am | #5
What the creed does not address, in particular, is the question “What must I do to be saved?”
Would this lead us to why there is a need for both creeds and confessions?
November 6th, 2009 | 11:51 am | #6
JMR:
What if you’re trusting in the Jesus with 1 billion+ hands and feet who all contribute to the treasury of merit because they are a body with a single head?
November 6th, 2009 | 12:04 pm | #7
A very thought-provoking and thoughtful post. It reminds me of something the great Lutheran theologian of the last century, Hermann Sasse once said:
…prayer of the church must be first of all prayer of repentance. The great danger of the church of all ages is that she preaches repentance to the world and at the same time becomes a castaway, because she forgets that all true repentance must begin at the house of God, with the repentance of the church. Here too the…re is no difference between the Catholic Churches which from principle do not repent and the evangelical churches whcih do not repent in practice. We are so accustomed to seeing church politics hold primacy in the church that we erroneously expect that a change in church politics must bring forth a new day in history. Sasse, Ecclesia Orans
November 6th, 2009 | 12:05 pm | #8
And may I offer one more comment from Dr. Sasse?
“We testify also that we, as we have done hitherto, desire to work in the ecumenical movement of Christianity with all our powers that the relationship between the Christian confessions and churches become something different and better, in this century when there is a fight for the very existence of the Christian fa…ith. But we are of the conviction that this work can only be crowned with the blessing of God if it happens in absolute truthfulness, and we know that in this regard Christians of other confessions agree with us. If the great dialogue of the churches in the ecumenical movement sinks into a shallow unionism, then the Lutheran Church can never fulfill her ecumenical task, to proclaim to Christianity the correct understanding of law and gospel and the correct understanding of the means of grace, and especially also the Sacrament of the true body and blood of Jesus Christ. Sasse, Open Letter to the LWF, Lund 1947.”
November 6th, 2009 | 12:26 pm | #9
Frank:
Can you give me a citation on the person or movement you are mentioning?
Wouldn’t want to misunderstand a figure of speech a movement might be making or anything . . .
I once met a critic of Calvinism who said the Calvinists worshiped Allah-Jesus, which I thought was neither witty nor fair. Of course, if Calvinists did worship Allah-Jesus, they would have missed the mark . . . though if they admitted to it and used their theology to name their children the Disneyland name tag would be awesome. (eg. Allah-Jesus Vanderhoof)
I can say this: if someone hypothetically believes Jesus had jillions of arms, he has missed the real Jesus of Nazareth who as a real man had, so far as we can tell, a much duller two arms.
If however like a Pentecostal youth group pastor I heard, someone in a moment of passion said something like: “We are the body of Christ. We are His hands in a dying world . . .” then I think I get what he meant . . . and don’t think he has gotten the wrong Jesus just based on his figure of speech.
As for a “treasury of merit” . . . don’t quite see what that has to do with the nature of Jesus or the nature of God.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:39 pm | #10
Frank,
This is the point of separating adiaphora from misunderstanding from those doctrines which are heretical.
When I had that first post a while back on faith/works/smoke/fire … my reading of the comment train is that while there is fine differences in catholic/protestant notions of justifications it is not found at the faith/works loci.
You seem to put more things in the heresy bag than do many. The Nicenean fathers I think located heresy at wrong notions of the nature of God and Man. You have moved that to wrong notions of fine points of how to pray and exact wordings used to define justification, sanctification (and theosis). If you can show that ideas, be they catholic, baptist or eastern, are rooted in wrong notions about God (and Man) then that is more interesting than just insisting that catholics because they don’t adhere to Sola Scriptura or they use a rosary in prayer so therefore they will be damned.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:48 pm | #11
JMR:
I would refer to INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA issued by Pope Paul VI, which you can find here. It is plain in that document that the Catholic position of “merit” extends the definition of the body of Christ from the human person of Christ to the whole church in a direct one-to-one relationship. It is one explication of the concept of the “infusion” of justification inherent in Caltholic theology.
Thanks for asking.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:51 pm | #12
Mark –
With all due respect, the problem is that you have abandoned the historical context of the Nicene creed and the objective which was limited to the controversies of the day. I would agree without qualification that the Nicene creed only deals with the problems inherent in Arianism — but that was the controversy they set out to resolve.
November 6th, 2009 | 12:57 pm | #13
Frank,
I think Mark’s point was that Arianism is a far more serious heresy that any errors Calvinism might be committing.
Mainstream Calvinism is Trinitarian and has good Christology so many other Christians tolerate its historically unusual views on the extent of the atonement.
John Mark
November 6th, 2009 | 1:12 pm | #14
Well said.
It does take much more than a simple reading of the Nicene creed and a larger swath of church history to realize that Nicaea weighed in on the controversies of its day but not the controversies of every day.
Just two examples that come to mind:
(1) One can affirm Nicaea and be in violation of Chalcedon. The church later determined Chalcedon was important because if issue that had arisen in that day. So they did not see affirmation of Nicaea as enough.
(2) The Council of Orange. There are a whole number of issues regarding grace and nature that are decreed for and against–again issues not dealt with at Nicaea.
We do ourselves an injustice when we do an end run around on issues assuming that it is automatically more noble to appeal to early forms of unity. Even Arius tried that appeal to Constantine after the Council of Nicaea.
Of course we need to exercise discernment over what errors are egregious errors and which ones truly are intramural squabbles.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:23 pm | #15
Tim:
I have tried to suggest four grounds for saying x is a Christian:
1. we worship the same God
2. we worship the same Jesus
3. we have been “born again”
4. we have works that evidence our new status.
So X may believe that serious error a, b, c is true, but still be a fellow Christian since it is Jesus who saves and x knows my Jesus.
That is my attempt at defining egregious versus non-egregious errors in terms of reading a community in or out of “Christianity.”
Frank,
I read the document to which you referred and (without assenting to it) I saw nothing in it about the nature of God or Christ. It also is not about salvation from hell-fire which is what we are discussing.
One can, I think, believe all sorts of things about purgatory (or even in purgatory) without ceasing to be a Christian or finding one’s error damnable.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:27 pm | #16
Unless I am misunderstanding some of the points being made, it would not be correctly to say that the Nicene Creed was simply/only/merely a creed designed to combat Arianism.
Though surely it did that, and quite well, it was also very much the Church speaking its faith in as definitive and formal a sense as possible, and the Nicene Creed’s roots can be found even back in the New Testament’s assertions and doctrinal statements.
I do not understand how or why a Christian today would have any hesitancy being able to say that, in addition to whatever could be said, or has been said, one must assert and believe the Nicene Creed to be regarded as within the realm of authentic Christianity.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:29 pm | #17
Frank:
You said:
It is plain in that document that the Catholic position of “merit” extends the definition of the body of Christ from the human person of Christ to the whole church in a direct one-to-one relationship.
I say:
I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying that the document argues church is the human person of Jesus? (church=human person of Jesus) I don’t see that . . . and do see the use of phrases such as Mystical Body.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:31 pm | #18
JMR:
In Chapter 3 of that document, it says this –
There is no question what is being said there: that the work of Christ is not just what occurs at the cross, but what Christ’s mystical body does as manifest as the church. This is the basis for saying this in the next chapter:
There is merit assembled both by Christ personally and Christ-as-his-church which “could set the individual free from the vestiges of sins”.
This is achieved by, um, achiueving an inclusive definition (how’s that for treading the mine field?) for what it means for Christ to have a body which does meritorius work. And I think that even if this is what they meant at Nicea, we have to ask if this is what we mean as Protestants that it is only the merits of Christ which save us.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:32 pm | #19
Tim:
I should add that when you say, “We do ourselves an injustice when we do an end run around on issues assuming that it is automatically more noble to appeal to early forms of unity.” I certainly agree.
However, early forms of unity majored on the majors by nature . . . since the Church was coming to understand the message of the Savior and the revelation of God to man in the Incarnation.
Other important issues matter and they mean we cannot worship together with separated brothers, but they do not damn.
We are not, after all, saved by good theology alone.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:37 pm | #20
Rev McCain:
I think one of the most-serious errors non-Catholic commit to (and it’s usually a baptist of one kind or another who does this, so I know where my fingers are pointing) is the idea that the Creeds aren’t really that great. I would reject that whole-cloth as long as what we are saying, as Schaff says about these creeds, is that the church developed/issued them in order to clarify what they received are were therefore using them to teach what the Scriptures themselves teach. The creeds are not equal to Scripture ot parallel to Scripture, but are a result of the effort to remain faithful to the word of Scripture.
I would gladly and proudly affirm the Nicene Creed, and I would think less of someone who wanted to call it “just a creed” as that is sort of an unfortunate excuse to ignore the history of faith.
Hope that helps.
November 6th, 2009 | 1:42 pm | #21
Frank,
I am in the odd position of defending a document to which I do not assent.
However, it seems to me your reading is remarkably uncharitable (literary sense of the term) and misses the style of the literary form. I take it that such documents read like more ancient documents. That is scope of the argument and terms (as they will be used) are defined early on and then can be used in a more restrictive sense later without the qualifications made earlier in the document.
As I read it (accepting the definitions in Chapter 1 and restrictions on the scope the argument and terms deployed), the entire document is not about salvation from sin or hell-fire, but dealing with the “vestiges of sin” and reparations against the cosmic order (and not dealing with the basic restored relationship between God and man).
In short, it deals with men already believers and who are already (see Dante!) saved from damnation. If you see the shores of Mount Purgatory (assuming we believed in it), then it is all going to be good.
I see nothing in the document that suggests that the saints (or any indulgence) can restore the basic relationship (peace with God) that comes only from the one mediator Jesus Christ. It does suggest (which may be problematic) that there are OTHER problems that the merits of the saints can restore.
I think it says something like:
The treasury of grace contains x and y. Humans have problems a and b. Without a prior solution to a, solving b is impossible. Only x can solve a, but once x solves a, y can be a partial solution to b.
This document may be seriously wrong, but it does not strike me (if a is the damnable state) as having anything to do with the issues that would lead me to believe that people asserting the truth of the document:
1. worship a different God (like unitarians)
2. worship a different Jesus (like Arians)
3. lack a “born again” experience
4. are trusting anyone other than Jesus to save them from hell-fire.
The document obviously encourages those already redeemed to manifest that redemption (and deal with a different problem caused by sin) through acts of charity.
Even if seriously mistaken, it does therefore not provide a grounds for your claim that it attacks the very nature of God or the work of Jesus in salvation. Would anyone read itwell and think that asking for the intercession of the Blessed Virgin would save them from Hell?
I don’t see it.
Finally in terms of the nature of God, it appears to me that the document early on uses “body of Christ” as “Mystical body” and then later simply assumes you will continue to accept the restriction placed on it.
Perhaps (he said in his ignorance) papal documents are not meant to be read this way, but it appears the way (in terms of literary form) that the document is designed. If so your citation from later in the document must be understand (as you are not) with the earlier definitions and qualifications. Otherwise you would be quoting out of context.
Finally, let me repeat this this defense of the document does not imply agreement with it. I do not agree with it.
As to my reading versus yours:
Can one of our RC friends help us here with the best exegetical tools to use in reading papal documents?
November 6th, 2009 | 2:00 pm | #22
I will also add that if my view is correct “open theism” is a more serious error than “the treasury of grace” (if it is to be understood in the way I have described).
November 6th, 2009 | 2:32 pm | #23
John Mark,
It strikes me though that while one may agree on the ‘1,’ ‘2,’ and ‘3′ when asked the most basic “what must I do to be born again?” there are a number of very basic but very different answers one can give no matter how much one agrees with 1, 2, and 3.
You also note that the document would lead you to believe the people who are holding to it are not “trusting anyone other than Jesus to save them from hell-fire.”
The issue isn’t so much is one trusting Jesus or someone else but are the trusting Jesus and someone/somthing else. This does not speak to people of all stripes who are weak in their genuine faith in Christ alone but the extent to which some commingle their faith with other elements of trust. Of course, then the question is does this violate at the level of say for example Galatians 1:6-9.
As an example, it seems that in Galatians Paul’s own opponents had nothing against confessing Jesus as Messiah but that they want Jesus and circumcision. This and for Paul was such a magnitude that it created an alien gospel.
I do agree with you that the nature of the early church was to struggle with issues most important to the church, e.g. major not minor. Of course, this doesn’t discount the fact that issues that arise later can indeed be major as well.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:44 pm | #24
Tim,
I cannot see any charitable reading (literary sense) of the document where it argues:
“The issue isn’t so much is one trusting Jesus or someone else but are the trusting Jesus and someone/something else.”
on a topic meaningful to our conversation.
While it is the case that I trust God with my life, in a given situation God uses a fireman or a doctor to help save my life. So Jesus Christ, and Christ alone, is the only way to become a Christian and to live with God forever, but that does not mean that there are no other problems in the cosmos or that God has chosen to only use Jesus (directly) to do everything.
If one believes in purgatory, then whatever the saints do to help souls there, has nothing to do with saving faith or redemption from hell-fire.
Isn’t that obvious?
November 6th, 2009 | 2:47 pm | #25
Tim:
Anyone trusting the merits of Mary and Jesus to save them from hell-fire where Mary has merits apart from Jesus is sub-Christian.
I don’t see that in this document at all.
November 6th, 2009 | 2:53 pm | #26
The creeds function as an authoritative interpretation of the scriptures. The Catholic understanding of “tradition” –at the very least–indends to say that sola Scriptura is not enough, because one could theoretically hold to it, and yet still be an Arian. Thus, the controversy came to a head at Nicea and the definitive statement on what exactly scripture was teaching was declared. People who deviate from this interpretation cannot be Christians, or at least they cannot be admitted into the membership of the church. The Reformed confessions function much the same way.
So while the creed may function as a boundary, it also functions as a center. It holds people out and it anchors people in depending on whether it is denied or affirmed. Thus it is both unifying and dividing, and I am not sure how it can be seen as one more than the other.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:04 pm | #27
JMR –
That’s the nicest way anyone has ever called me uncharitable, so I take it at face value. :-)
Here’s the irony: I like everything you just said — I might even own it. I might even steal it someday. Let me walk through it to show you why your analogy is perfect and your conclusion is faulty.
You analogy says that salvation has a singular gate (‘a’) through which no one passes without Christ (rightly-named ‘x’ as any student of Greek would do). Fair enough: we agree — no one comes to the Father except through Christ.
The problem thereafter is that the analogy assumes that Christ is not enough to finish the job. As soon as we posit condition ‘b’ which requires solution ‘y’, we have said Christ’s work solves only part of the problem of man’s guilt before God, so Christ’s solution still requires the addition of something else man does.
It’s the entire notion of the “second gate” which ought to be profoundly disturbing, and even moreso when we have to read the text as if they do not mean that Christ is the head of a body which does meritorious work when in fact that is exactly what it says. There is no way to position that, once spelled out in your analogy as something other than another Gospel.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:07 pm | #28
Adam O:
It can be seen according to its writers’ purposes, and the explicit purpose of this creed is to exclude those who disagree with it. That is a transparent fact of history.
It does create an “us”, through affirmation, but it creates an “us” not to unify those who have various oither concerns but rather to separate the “them” who have deviated and are in anathemacious [new word: mark it down] error.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:29 pm | #29
Frank,
It is a big cosmos and there are many jobs in it.
Only Jesus can do the saving job from hell-fire and nothing, nothing, nothing can add to the great work He has done. However, humans have problem other than the fact they are gong to hell and there are consequences I have called “b-problems” that are not directly against His Majesty, but He allows others to cooperate with Him in doing other jobs (like saving babies from burning buildings or taking down the Taliban).
Why not allow that there are spiritual problems of this sort as well?
Restoring my relationship with God does not (the way He has designed things) restore my relationship to the state, the community, the church, the individual, or the cosmos.
He gives humans and their institutions a great gift: the right to be offended! (Remarkable really how awesome the gift of personhood to mankind was!)
The saving problem is our offense against the King of Kings, but the Great King allows us to also offend against His minister our local king. If I read the document correctly, the Blessed Virgin can add nothing in dealing with our attempted Regicide, but she might be part of the comfort God allows as we face hanging for attempted regicide.
One consequence of my sin has been continued personal pain, but God has used wise ministers to help bring wholeness to that pain. They did not “forgive my sin” against God, but they did help me process the vestiges and the OTHER consequences of my sin.
Let me try a simple example. When I call you a name (say “Regicide Puritan”), I have sinned against God and against you. God may forgive me, but I still should ask for your forgiveness. When you forgive me, something good happens. Yes?
I have not added to God’s forgiveness, which is so awesome that next to it your forgiveness is trivial, but God has set up the cosmos such that I still have to ask for it.
He allows for you to have a real offense requiring relational healing between us.
There are hurts He has chosen to allow to be healed in no other way. God is sovereign!
Having lived a long and icky life, I have (at times) sinned against the Church. I did not just ask God’s pardon, but my community. I got it.
We are guilty of many things and all that guilt is (of course) before God, but it does not seem to me that the document (to which you refer) adds another ground to the salvation from damnation to which the gospel refers. It tries (however successfully) to deal with other guilt where the immediate offense is against cosmic order or the Church.
Here is how I read it:
The Blessed Virgin and Lady Theotokos cannot add a single thing to my salvation from the second death. Her merits are of no use there. However, like any mother (if I am reading the document correctly) correctly she can comfort me in the first death, which I will still face and in any post-death schooling in sanctification I still face.
That may not be right, but it is not a “different gospel.”
The document accepts that though the Christian is no longer guilty and will not pay the price of sin (the death of damnation) there are still secondary consequences to that sin.
Being declared not guilty, does not make the shame (for example) vanish just the guilt.
This happens all the time in daily life. Let me try another example. I am forgiven by you for calling you a Regicide Puritan, but the boo-boo I put on Russell Moore’s heart will have to heal as he witnessed my unfair attacks on his pal.
Our relationship (Moore and Reynolds) will be strained and to help restore community I will have to do acts befitting my repentance. (For example, I might put a picture of Al Mohler up in my office.) In this way, the secondary results of my sin in calling you a sin, the scandal caused to Moore ( the primary offense was against Turk by Reynolds) are healed. It is possible that Al Mohler, chock full of earned respect in the Reformed community, could intervene and speed up the process by telling Moore that really I am sorry and that he, Dr. Mohler, will vouch for me.
Though this is a bit tongue in cheek, it gets to the issue.
As for the “body of Christ,” I really think contextually it is an image. We are Christ’s body in one mystical sense (which is “real” though not material!), but not in the sense that I am literally an arm of Christ (material sense of body).
I just think that you have misread the Papal piece which has problems (from my point of view), but not the one you suggest. I really wish a local Catholic would take up this argument and let us know if we are both misreading this complex and interesting piece!
November 6th, 2009 | 3:40 pm | #30
Let me repeat that my argument:
1. is not a defense of the ideas in the document
2. not a statement of my views.
It is an attempt to see if the document and doctrines in it (correctly read) constitute (by themselves) another Gospel such that to be a Catholic is like being a Mormon (people attending Mormon services who are saved do so by being failing to be truly Mormon).
November 6th, 2009 | 3:41 pm | #31
Frank,
I think Homer Simpson would say “anathamelicious.”
November 6th, 2009 | 3:44 pm | #32
I have tremendous respect for the dialogue taking place and particularly for the careful argumentation Dr. Reynolds is putting to work. But I have to say, I still haven’t recovered from the suggestion that Rome and Salt Lake City stand in equivalent theological positions. This whole thing, in many ways, is incredibly disheartening.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #33
John Mark,
This isn’t like asking “does having fries with a steak rob from the quality of the steak and not just the aesthetics of steak alone?”, where we could say “steak is steak regardless of what uncouth side dishes we might add to it.” Adding fries do not decrease the nutrition of the steak.
But Christ’s work doesn’t just save us from hell-fire, it saves us to heaven–without middle men or extra channels. To trust Christ to save me from hell-fire is incomplete if I don’t believe that he alone save me to something.
“If one believes in purgatory, then whatever the saints do to help souls there, has nothing to do with saving faith or redemption from hell-fire.”
Except for the fact that if Christ blood saves perfectly to heaven and is truly all we need, then ‘what goes on down there’ through saints to purify us for heaven has everything with what we believe about saving faith and redemption.
If Christ’s blood forgives sins once for all time so that ‘there sin and lawless deeds I remember no more’ then a middle purifying stage has everything to do with redemption. We aren’t just saying ‘a steak can go nice with fries, (although it isn’t sophisticated)’–we are starting to say steak alone can’t nourish me like I need to get me where I want to be at the end of the day.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:49 pm | #34
Hunter,
I am sorry, but I intended to convey the opposite idea. If I am correct, then Rome and Salt Lake City are not in equivalent positions. Let’s be blunt: if Frank is correct, then to be a born again Catholic is to be a bad Catholic.
That would be making (on one level) Rome and Salt Lake City equivalent, though Frank would (I assume) concede that Rome is right about many more things than Salt Lake City.
I too would find that view very, very disheartening and do not agree with it. Perhaps I have misread Frank’s view in which case I apologize.
I think Rome is Christian, with errors. I think a good Catholic (as Catholic) is a Christian, though I would prefer that they change their mind on very important issues. Salt Lake City is a spin off from Christianity whose errors about the nature of God are too serious to tolerate.
I know Mormons I think (personally) are Christians, but to do so they have ceased (in my view) to be good Mormons. That is NOT the case with Rome.
November 6th, 2009 | 3:52 pm | #35
Mormonism is outside Christianity. It is a cult. It explicitly rejects the Christian faith, as it is defined by the Nicene Creed.
Roman Catholicism is an expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic faith, an expression that I am convinced is, in its public confession, an erring church body, but clearly it is Christian. It explicitly embraces the Christian faith, as it is defined by the Nicene Creed.
Is anyone actually thinking otherwise about Mormonism and Roman Catholicism?
November 6th, 2009 | 3:56 pm | #36
Tim,
If I understand the doctrine correctly, you will get to Heaven from purgatory even if:
1. there were no prayers of saints
2. there were no merit in saints.
They are allowed to help prepare the bride for her reception to the groom (bridesmaids if you will!), but the wedding will take place regardless. They are neither necessary to the soul in Purgatory getting to Paradise nor sufficient, but they are accidentally helpful (as God has chosen to make the cosmos).
Thus they add nothing to the sufficiency of Christ, but only decorate His work and participate in a consummation that would occur if no saint had ever done a thing.
God is my only hope to find happiness in this life, but He has chosen not to meet my full needs directly. Without woman, I am “alone.” (This was before sin!) He chooses, how wonderful!, to allow Hope to meet some needs.
He does not need Hope to do this in principle (I assume), but that is the way He designed us from the start.
Purgatory (a notion in which some Protestants believe in one form or another) is a transition to Heaven dealing with our prep for Paradise.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:01 pm | #37
Help me out here John Mark,
If someone claims the need for purgatory, in what sense can Christ’s sacrifice on the cross be said to be sufficient?
As you say, the lack of prayers and merits don’t keep someone ultimately out of heaven. But purgatory itself, how can that not be said to add to the work of Calvary?
November 6th, 2009 | 4:05 pm | #38
Rev. McCain says:
Is anyone actually thinking otherwise about Mormonism and Roman Catholicism?
I say:
I hope not. I am trying to see if that was what was being implied. (“The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic” line . . . )
November 6th, 2009 | 4:15 pm | #39
Defending a doctrine in which I do not believe (as stated by the Bishop of Rome) is a weird task, but let me try. I will have to end this thread for me after this or at least very soon as I have hit my blogging limit for my morning off!
God does all the needed work to get Bob to Heaven. However, we know from observation in this life, that God has not chosen to give Bob:
1. instant sanctification
2. remove all the temporal consequences of Bob’s sins
at the very least. He also allows humans who are alive to help Bob deal with broken relationships due to his sin before death. When my mom comforts me when in sorrow over my sin (as she often does), she is not adding to the forgiveness of God, but God is allowing her to participate in my full healing.
He did not have to do so, but He chose to do so.
Purgatory would, if it is real, be unnecessary (in the strict sense) to get Bob to Paradise, but an option God has chosen to use (if He has chosen to use it).
Somethings are not necessary in themselves, but are useful because God allows them to be useful. God could, I assume, have set the cosmos up differently, but the Catholic Church teaches that He did not.
To use an example: God did NOT need to create man to need woman, but now that He has, I need my wife Hope to keep from being “alone.”
God is all I need in one sense. He alone could be sufficient for all my needs, but in His necessary sufficiency, He has chosen to be meet my needs through the work of another, in particular my wife Hope.
Hope was not necessary for my needs, but thank the Good God for a great blessing!
To Him be the fundamental glory, but I am still thankful for Hope’s work in my life. I do not diminish His work one iota (since He created Hope) by celebrating her status as the Fairest Flower in All Christendom.
You ask:
If someone claims the need for purgatory, in what sense can Christ’s sacrifice on the cross be said to be sufficient?
Christ’s work on the Cross is utterly sufficient, but God has chosen to allow His people to participate in getting you ready to enter His gates as His bride. Assuming (per the impossible) that nobody did a thing for you, the Church utterly failed you, and not one saint cared a fig for you, then God would still welcome you.
Jesus paid it all. He allows His children to participate in the clean up, but if we fail Him (and Catholics would say the saints never fail at this task), He will never fail those we fail.
Jesus alone, but Jesus then placed us in a community of His followers and allowed them to do meaningful things in relationship with us.
That is true in this life (though He did not have to create a Church, He did) and (if the doctrine is to be believe) in the next.
Being in the Church does not add to Christ’s work in delivering us from damnation, but it is how Christ has chosen to deal with secondary consequences (after our fundamental deliverance) of that damnation.
He allows me to offend you and for you to forgive me. I need to seek that forgiveness, though if you withhold it, this is not necessary to my salvation. You would deprive me of a joy and yourself of a blessing.
Does your forgiveness and my need to ask for it (at least in this life as a kind of purgative) add to my “justification?” I don’t see how.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #40
Daryl,
“But purgatory itself, how can that not be said to add to the work of Calvary?”
Well, as the doctrine goes, everyone in purgatory is on their way to heaven.
As a parallel: We Protestants also believe that something will happen to change us after we die. We will enter a glorified state, and the lingering impact of fallen human nature will be removed. We can say that the work of Calvary guarantees this aspect of our salvation–and we certainly wouldn’t say, “Something still have to happen to us in the future? Whoa, stop, that’s adding to the Cross!”
So, I don’t think you can say that the basic idea of purgatory adds to Calvary. There may be details that do, but you have to point to more than the basic notion of purgatory.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:26 pm | #41
John Mark,
But you’re confusing categories. You forgiving me does nothing to my sin in relation to God. But purgatory is a different animal, it’s not cleaning up my issue with you, it’s cleaning up my God’s issue with me.
So we’re still at ground zero. How does it no add to the cross when it appears to do what the cross does?
November 6th, 2009 | 4:34 pm | #42
Daryl,
I think you have confused what is being “purged” in purgatory, but let me allow a Roman to pick up that ball.
I would add, however, that “your issue with me” is really part of God’s issue with me. You are only allowed to be offended as His child. My fundamental offense is against Him.
The point is that He has allowed you to pronounce forgiveness of me in a meaningful sense, though He will still forgive me even if you don’t.
In that sense, all sin is in one category, against God, but He allows us to participate, if we will, in dealing with some of the logical consequences.
Just as you are not adding to my salvation, so the saints do not add to it either. Neither is necessary, but God delights in letting His kids help where they can.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:34 pm | #43
Jug,
But the basic notion of purgatory is that the cross itself doesn’t make us pure enough to get to heaven. Purgatory does that.
So how does adding to the cross, in order to purify us, not add to it?
Canon XXX (Trent)
“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.”
See I thought that the cross gained us entrance into heaven. Do we believe that the cross is sufficient? That there is nothing else necessary for salvation? Or do we believe that the cross merely grants us entrance into a series of rites which, when completed, finally allow us entrance into heaven.
November 6th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #44
For clarity:
1. All sin is against God.
2. God created humans in His image to be able to do things “like those things” He alone can truly do in Himself. (eg. create)
3. One of those things is forgiveness and dealing with the “secondary” consequences of sin. God has created beings that He allows to take up some of His offense. (He is offended when His children are harmed and allows them to “forgive” in imitation of His forgiveness.)
4. God chooses, though He need not have done so, to allow the removal of the vestigial consequences of sin to occur slowly and for humans to be part of the cleaning up process.
5. No human work is necessary and any God would do, any merit we have is only merit gained from God. We give God back what He has given us.
6. When we forgive our debtors, we give them what God has given us.
7. If purgatory exists, then it is continuation of this plan for justice after death.
8. At the Second Coming, there will be no purgatory as all work of that sort will be done.
Therefore: it appears that a main difference between Rome and some evangelicals is that Rome views the state after death (before the End) as being much like the state before death, while some evangelicals think it utterly different.
Catholics have Christians doing what they were doing before death, becoming sanctified (purgatory) or helping others (works of mercy) all done by God’s grace alone. Some evangelicals (perhaps most?) have Christians doing very different things after death (worship alone?) than they do before death. (Though given the image of the martyrs in the book of Revelation, I assume everybody agrees at least some of the dead pray for us to God.)
Purgatory is, therefore, not a doctrine that (in itself) is another gospel even if seriously mistaken or any Christian helping any other Christian (or assuming God uses other Christians to help in the process of sanctification) is another gospel.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:03 pm | #45
given the image of the martyrs in the book of Revelation, I assume everybody agrees at least some of the dead pray for us to God.
I think one sees that only if one holds to an exclusively Catholic, formal definition of “saint.” I don’t see the redeemed before the throne praying; I see the prayers of the saints (the redeemed) going up before God’s throne like incense, but no indication that anyone in heaven is praying.
Given that in Revelation the use of “saint” indicates those belonging to God (and especially those alive on the earth suffering for their faith), I don’t see how “the prayers of the saints” supports the idea of the dead in Christ praying for us.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:05 pm | #46
Frank, let ME be FRANK: It seems to me that you don’t listen and you are willingly ignorant. The Bible defines the Gospel in 1 Corinthians 15. The Catholic Church teaches that Gospel (at least officially). Many Catholics are not-or at least might not be-converted in their hearts. That does not matter one iota. The Church teaches that man is saved by grace through faith because of Christ and his work.
You have an axe to grind and that is keeping you from seeing the truth. Either you have never considered the Catholic faith from within the Catholic paradigm or you just don’t care. It is not inconsistent to say that be a Christian one must be baptized. It is wrong to say that without baptism one is damned NO MATTER WHAT. Catholicism teaches the former and not the latter. That is because Catholicism teaches that salvation is a process. In the mind of the early Church salvation and sanctification are inseparable. Forgiveness is not a process; salvation is. If you say that salvation is simply being forgiven, then you neglect the bigger concept of the Gospel that says God is reconciling ALL THINGS. Salvation includes everything in me: my works, my words, my thoughts, etc. That does not all CHANGE at the moment of forgiveness.
I believe Calvinism and “once-saved, always saved” are heresies. That does not mean that I believe one who believes those things is automatically lost. It means I believe people who hold one of those ideas are wrong on critical points.
Frank, for one who talks a lot about grace, you really seem to have a penchant for telling God to whom he can be gracious.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:25 pm | #47
Dr. Reynolds, I apologize. I was responding to a comparison Frank Turk offered in an earlier thread. I didn’t think you were suggesting the same.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:43 pm | #48
Jeff,
I had this in mind where the already dead seem to be doing something:
Revelation 6:9 and following:
Given this, and the action of the elders, I see no reason to limit those praying other contexts in the Book of Revelation to those who are alive.
Some dead do some things some times.
This, of course, does not argue for the full blown “treasury of merit” (which I think a bad idea) or even for the morality of asking for the prayers of the active dead.
As I have no desire to go further on this topic, this will be my last comment on this thread.
November 6th, 2009 | 5:55 pm | #49
I like the phrase “already dead” — a good reminder for all of us.
Yes, the dead in Christ are doing things — worship, praise, serving God in his temple, waving palm branches to acclaim Christ’s victory. But among those things I don’t see intercession for the “not yet dead.” Christ intercedes, the Spirit prays for us, we pray for one another. But I don’t see any indication that intercession (or any number of other things) continues after we’re translated into the presence of Christ.
And yes, we’ve written enough on this for one day.
November 7th, 2009 | 8:54 am | #50
My apologies for having to finish some things yesterday and not getting back here to provide some more dialog.
There are some extended responses due, but here are the drive-bys briefly:
Hunter — if in fact Roman Catholicism (as opposed to the set of all Catholics) presents a false Gospel, then they are exactly like the Mormon church. In exactly the same way the Arians were not Christians — that is, not in the same expression but by the same category of error (systematic denial of a central truth) — any theological system which subverts the Gospel is a false and spiritually-dangerous system. To say otherwise is simply to deny the warnings to the churches in Revelation and the warnings of Paul to the Galatians.
Dr. McCain — To be as specific as possible, I would assert the following:
[a] As in the WCF, XXV.5: “The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated, as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.”
[b] I would also assert with Calvin that even though some of these worst examples are not of Christ, among them are still some of Christ’s people.
[c] The formal teachings of Roman Catholicism are specifically what WCF XXV.5 is speaking about, and in that there are still some people who are rightly called Christian in that fold in spite of those teachings.
OrdthoDJ — Prove it. So far what I have done on this topic is go to the source and ask what the document means, and it’s interesting to see who will say that the document doesn’t say what it says.
November 7th, 2009 | 12:32 pm | #51
Because what I have to say to JMR and his long objection is full-contact Catholic apologetics which, as I do above, rejects the orthodoxy of Roman catholic teaching in detail, I have opted not to ask our hosts at First Things host that statement here.
I have posted it at PyroManiacs instead. If you are interested or inclined, please read it there.
I appreciate 99% of the exchange here so far, and I thank 99% of the readers for proving me wrong about the direction this internet discussion usually takes. Kudos to you for being well-behaved overall.
November 7th, 2009 | 1:26 pm | #52
I read your piece and appreciate its tone. I don’t agree with some of it, think other parts are worth more thought, but sadly don’t have time today (though I did yesterday) to respond.
Fundamentally, I still think my reading of the doctrine in question is more plausible than your own.
John Mark
November 7th, 2009 | 3:03 pm | #53
Frank Turk: “But here’s what the concession speech wants to do: it wants to make a statement which both sides can agree to and call that the solution. So the concession speech wants us to believe that what makes someone a Christian is [the Nicene Creed].
And this is an interesting tactic – to use the Nicene Creed as a unifying document. But let me suggest something about that creed which this view overlooks: the Nicene Creed was not intended as a unifying document.”
Wow. Wow. I never, never knew that before. If true, that’s revelatory. I’ve been conditioned over the years to think that the Nicene Creed would, could, and does serve as a useful Touchstone for conservative Catholics, conservative Eastern Orthodoxers, and conservative Protestants to rally around as (separated) brethren in Christ.
Or at least to use our common affirmation of the Nicene Creed to unite us all as cultural co-belligerents.
Your post gives us something to think about and ponder.
November 7th, 2009 | 10:57 pm | #54
John Mark has done a fine job in presenting the Catholic understanding of purgatory. Some of the better defenses of purgatory I have read are by Jimmy Akin, which you can find in these places:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/how2purg.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PURGATOR.HTM
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4675&CFID=20410403&CFTOKEN=84129039
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9411fea1.asp
November 9th, 2009 | 4:42 pm | #55
I am always intrigued by Catholic apologetic answers to the question of Purgatory. I always wonder why they rarely reference the Baltimore Catechism?
Q. 1381. What is Purgatory?
A. Purgatory is the state in which those suffer for a time who die guilty of venial sins, or without having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.
Q. 1382. Why is this state called Purgatory?
A. This state is called Purgatory because in it the souls are purged or purified from all their stains; and it is not, therefore, a permanent or lasting state for the soul.
Q. 1383. Are the souls in Purgatory sure of their salvation?
A. The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision.
Q. 1384. Do we know what souls are in Purgatory, and how long they have to remain there?
A. We do not know what souls are in Purgatory nor how long they have to remain there; hence we continue to pray for all persons who have died apparently in the true faith and free from mortal sin. They are called the faithful departed.
Q. 1385. Can the faithful on earth help the souls in Purgatory?
A. The faithful on earth can help the souls in Purgatory by their prayers, fasts, alms, deeds; by indulgences, and by having Masses said for them.
Q. 1386. Since God loves the souls in Purgatory, why does He punish them?
A. Though God loves the souls in Purgatory, He punishes them because His holiness requires that nothing defiled may enter heaven and His justice requires that everyone be punished or rewarded according to what he deserves.
Since we are citing other sources after INDULGENTIARUM DOCTRINA.
November 9th, 2009 | 5:15 pm | #56
Since I have a few minutes, I also have a few more notes:
I wouldn’t say otherwise
There is no question that in some way this is part of the doctrine of Purgatory, therefore part of the doctrine of Indulgences. Unfortunately, as I have already demonstrated, these doctrines deal with the penal necessity to punish those who are still guilty of their own sins — the doctrine is not about cosmic and relational therapy.
This point simply skates over two factual items from the document already cited:
[a] that the transferrence of Christ’s merit comes through the church because it is His body which does work worthy of merit above and beyond his own work on the Cross. It is impossible to deny this as the document make a direct reference to Paul’s statement in Col 1:24 in order to point out that the church does something which Christ’s work does not do.
[b] people are (allegedly) suffering in Purgatory for their sins. They receive punishment for their own wrong-doings. You cannot avoid that this is simply a matter of working off their own penal debt.
I wouldn’t say otherwise. I wouldn’t, however, indicate that this is what happens in Purgatory, nor would the formal teaching of Rome. What happens in Purgatory is the payment of a penal debt, and what the church on Earth can allegedly do is release someone from part of that due to the merits of other people of extreme sanctification — particularly Mary and the Saints.
The Church, it says, can mitigate some of their guilt with some of the excessive virtues of those who died in a state of grace.
Which plan? It’s sort of outrageous that so far I have cited two authoritative documents from the Magisterium which both say that Purgatory is a place where guilt is punished — and only by the completion of that punishment or a transferrence of merit from those who were fully-sanctified in this life can they be released — and you continue to simply ignore these statements from the authoritative source.
You have to deal with the teaching as it is, Dr. Reynolds, and not as we’d like it to be.
There is zero evidence of this. You cannot find the place where the Roman Catholic church teaches this. The places whgere you can find something which starts down this path all come back to the 04 Aug 1999 General Audience with John Paul II, and even in that moment of catechesis he never says that Purgatory will end with the second coming — he goes so far as to nearly deny Decretum de purgatorio which explicitly says Purgatory is a place and not merely a state or condition. In that, I’d be careful how to harmonize his remarks with the history of this doctrine.
November 9th, 2009 | 9:11 pm | #57
Frank-
Respectfully, it seems to me that what you are failing to grasp is that the Catholic Church unequivocally teaches that no action we take, apart from Christ’s sacrifice on the cross, saves us from the fires of Hell. God may let us participate in our sanctification, but everything good and worthy thing we do is only possible because of Christ and his sacrifice. In the end, it all comes back to Christ.
November 10th, 2009 | 7:32 am | #58
Thanks, Stephen, for being concise and charitable. What I think you have ignored is that I have already admitted that the Catholic church teaches that Christ saves from Hell. The problem is that it has erected another place from which Christ cannot save.
That is, as I have been circumspect to point out, from the Baltimore Catechism: The souls in Purgatory are sure of their salvation, and they will enter heaven as soon as they are completely purified and made worthy to enjoy that presence of God which is called the Beatific Vision. Purified and made worth by what? Having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.
The mitigating factor seems to be that it’s not a permanent state — but neither, of course, is any other work that we do. As I have said previously, this is a teaching where there is a second gate which Christ cannot open for us, but we must open for ourselves — or else have the treasury of sanctification amassed by Mary and the Saints over the millennia attributed or applied to us by an overt act of the Bishops.
November 10th, 2009 | 1:02 pm | #59
“Purified and made worth by what? Having satisfied for the punishment due to their sins.”
That’s an interesting and important distinction, Frank.
It’s the kind of thing I was looking for up in comment #40, when I pointed out the Protestant idea of a final cleansing process before approaching the throne of God. (It’s what Catholics and others often point to, when they want to argue that Protestants shouldn’t object to the doctrine of purgatory.) I said:
There’s a difference between (1) a final cleansing process and (2) purgatory as a punishing cleansing process.
However–what do you think about the distinction they make between temporal punishment and eternal punishment? Can that get around the problem you’re identifying?
It’s clear from Scripture that there is a place for temporal discipline in the life of a redeemed believer–Christ’s sacrifice doesn’t satisfy the need for the discipline of Hebrews 12:7-11. But then, discipline isn’t the same as punishment.
November 10th, 2009 | 2:22 pm | #60
Frank-
I think your question is a fair one, and all I can do is tell you that from everything I’ve ever read about purgatory (which is considerable) it is my understanding that there is nothing we can do on our own (i.e., sans the saving power and grace given to us by Christ through His sacrifice on the cross) that allows us to (as you put it) “open that second gate” and enter Heaven. I would make the same point with respect to Mary and the Saints. Any participatory role they play in the salvation of others would be possible solely because of Christ working through them or as a result of graces bestowed on them by Christ. As I’ve already noted, in the end it’s all about Christ.
If I believed for one second that the Catholic Church taught that I could do anything on my own to merit my salvation, I would leave the Church immediately. I am fully aware of what I am apart from Christ, and where I deserve to spend eternity but for the grace and mercy of Jesus.
Nevertheless, I understand and appreciate why so many Protestants are uncomfortable with the language used by Catholics, and by matters that they consider to be extrabiblical. And you are absolutely right to point out that there remain serious theological differences between Catholics and Protestants that most likely will never be resolved in our lifetime. We also agree that these differences should not be papered over. It is foolish and disrespectful to those who preceded us to act as if the Reformation was some minor theological squabble.
That having been said, we should also realize that even questions that do not go to the question of salvation are still of the utmost importance because they concern the nature and character of the Triune God and what it means to be a Christian. I think you would agree that these are hardly trivial matters.
All I would ask is that we be charitable with one another in discussing these matters, and strive to reach a point where we can call each other brothers/sisters in Christ. I think it is perfectly fine for Protestants to contend, as many in this comment thread have done, that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church that teaches matters that they consider to be in error or extrabiblical. It is quite another thing, however, to say that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church, that Catholics are not Christians, or that Catholics are no different than Mormons. Needless to say, them’s fightin’ words. :)
November 10th, 2009 | 4:41 pm | #61
I will say what it seems many will not. We are responsible for our salvation. Salvation is a matter of the will. If I refuse to be saved, I will be lost. If I open up to God’s grace, I will be saved. As C.S. Lewis says in The Problem of Pain: the door to Hell is locked from the inside. There is a door that Christ cannot open without my consent: the door of my heart. After all, isn’t that the nature of love? It takes two.
November 10th, 2009 | 8:20 pm | #62
Stephen,
I may be misreading Frank, but I don’t see where he’s claiming that the problem with the doctrine of purgatory is that it claims that we must do something in and of ourselves to be made worthy of Heaven.
It seems to me that he’s pointing to a much much bigger problem. And that would be saying that the fires of purgatory do what Christ’s sacrifice on the cross did not and cannot do. And that is make us holy and acceptable to God.
It seems that Christ must do His part and those flames must do theirs. Therein lies a similar problem to the one Paul found in Galatia (similar, not identical), and that would be adding to the work of Christ, thereby making His sacrifice to be of no benefit.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:23 am | #63
Daryl –
You have read me wrong, and I would point to the documets already cited to underscore that the official teaching of Catholicism is that it is not what the punishment does but rather what we do by going through punishment. It is about what Christ cannot accomplish, but we accomplish it but going though something Christ did not accomplish for us.
November 11th, 2009 | 9:34 am | #64
Stephen –
I would distinguish significantly between the statement “The Roman Catholic Church is not a true church because it teaches a false Gospel,” and the statement “No Catholics are (or can be) saved.” I understand nwhy you would receive the latter as bigotry and an insult; I also undersatnd why you would receive the former as fighting words. However, to receive the former as necessarily meaning that latter is to confuse the issue.
That said, you need to link the language you’re using about Purgatory in the official teachings (which I admit is there) with the other stuff that is there. That’s where the trouble lies, and that’s why I would say what the Reformers all said after they were anathematized by Trent.
November 11th, 2009 | 2:16 pm | #65
Orthodoxdj: “I will say what it seems many will not. We are responsible for our salvation.”
Well, that’s another matter of contention (that occasionally becomes contentious). Monergists hold that God saves the elect. That it’s all God. And that the elect are *not* responsible for their salvation because it was all from God. Monergists also will provide Scripture to show that Scripture teaches monergism.
November 11th, 2009 | 3:37 pm | #66
I find myself in the strange position of disagreeing with both TUAD and OrthoDJ, but I also see them as each talking about something different than the other one.
TUAD: How do you handle the passage, then, where we are told to “work out our salvation with fear and trembling”? Or James 1&2?
OrthoDJ: So when does the Father hand over anyone over to the Son, of whom the Son will not lose any (cf. John 6:37)?
November 11th, 2009 | 4:19 pm | #67
i.e., it’s not exactly “We don’t choose him–he chooses us”, it’s “We choose him because he first chose us”?
November 11th, 2009 | 5:24 pm | #68
I might not have said it very well. If so, my bad.
Orthodoxdj, please go to Monergism.com and see their many articles and resources on the doctrine of (monergistic) election.
Pax.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact