A collection of some of our articles on pre-Reformation beliefs can be found here. On justification in particular, see here and here, for example.
Given that some of the advocates of justification through works prior to the Reformation expressed their view in opposition to people in their day who were arguing for justification through faith alone, why would you claim that nobody believed in justification through faith alone during that timeframe? When a church father criticizes people who believe in justification through faith alone, who is he addressing if no such people existed? It seems that a lot of people who make the claim you're making either aren't aware of this sort of evidence or haven't given it much thought. You can't have church fathers or other pre-Reformation sources criticizing people who advocated sola fide in their day if nobody was advocating sola fide. At a minimum, then, you ought to acknowledge that there were some such advocates of the concept prior to the Reformation.
A common response at this point is to acknowledge what I've said above, but then dismiss all of the pre-Reformation advocates of sola fide as heretics. But that approach won't work either. First, the mainstream sources who criticize such advocates of sola fide don't claim that all of these people were heretics. The assumption that they were all heretics is dubious. Secondly, some of the people criticizing them acknowledge the orthodoxy of the sola fide advocates, despite their criticism of those people. Third, the pre-Reformation advocacy of sola fide comes from some mainstream sources as well, not just sources who were criticized by the mainstream. It's true that justification through works was a more popular view among professing Christians prior to the Reformation, as it is today and as it is among humans in general. Justification through works is a popular concept. (So are a lot of other errors.) But justification through faith alone was one of the views that existed during the era between the apostles and the Reformation, alongside the many and contradictory forms of justification through works that existed during that timeframe.
We should also keep in mind that while the absence of a doctrine during the patristic era or the medieval era, for example, would be significant, an absence from the Bible would be even more significant. The Bible has more authority than later sources, and its books were written over a period of more than a thousand years. If you (erroneously) think that justification through faith alone was absent during the patristic centuries, for instance, and that fact is significant in your eyes, then the absence of justification through works in a more authoritative source that covers a longer period of time (the Bible) should seem even more significant to you. There's no way to avoid addressing the Evangelical appeal to scripture. While other data, like the patristic evidence, is significant and should be addressed, the Biblical evidence is even more significant. Asserting that nobody believed in sola fide between the apostles and the Reformation doesn't get you far. You need more than an assertion, and you need to address other lines of evidence, such as the Bible.
Pages
▼
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Sola Fide Between The Apostles And The Reformation
In case it would be helpful to some readers who aren't following the discussion, here's something I wrote in the comments section of a recent thread:
"A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into the western theological tradition where none had ever existed, or ever been contemplated, before. The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification -- as opposed to its mode -- must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum."
ReplyDelete"The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasised that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the context of the -ordo salutis-, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine."
Alister McGrath- IUSTITIA DEI: A History of the Christian Doctrine of Justification (Cambridge Univ Press, 1986)
Jason, tell you what, name the Church fathers that absolutely taught Reformed justification meaning imputed righteousness alone.
Just name them. And then everybody can go pick up their works and see if they can find Lutheran soteriology.
I have read elsewhere that it was not until the Council of Trent that the RCC formally (in response to the Protestant challenge) slammed the door shut for Sola Fide. That before Trent, you at least POTENTIALLY could have been a faithful RC member and put your trust in Christ's merits alone.
ReplyDelete(Sort of like RCs were able to hold and promote Hebrew OT canon before the Tridentine definition, but no longer afterwards.)
In other words, it would have been at Trent where the RCC finally hardened itself against the Gospel of grace and crossed the Rubicon - the point of no return.
Can you say whether this position is historically true?
Viisaus:
ReplyDeleteThat before Trent, you at least POTENTIALLY could have been a faithful RC member and put your trust in Christ's merits alone.
Catholic soteriology puts the trust in Christ's merits alone.
Trent teaches that our works just as our faith is preceded by Grace, that is unmerited from God.
The Catechisms affirms:
This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.
The preparation of man for the reception of grace is already a work of grace. This latter is needed to arouse and sustain our collaboration in justification through faith, and in sanctification through charity. God brings to completion in us what he has begun, “since he who completes his work by cooperating with our will began by working so that we might will it.
According to the Catholic Church, because we are truly infused with grace at baptism we are conformed unto Christ’s image and made alive to cooperate with God’s grace by working out our salvation with fear and trembling. Since we are a new creation, we are no longer dead in our trespasses. The Catechism of the Catholic Church quotes St. Augustine in its chapter on Grace (Paragraphs 1996-2005) to describe this in greater detail:
Indeed we also work, but we are only collaborating with God who works, for his mercy has gone before us. It has gone before us so that we may be healed, and follows us so that once healed, we may be given life; it goes before us so that we may be called, and follows us so that we may be glorified; it goes before us so that we may live devoutly, and follows us so that we may always live with God: for without him we can do nothing.
This is the truth of the Catholic doctrine. Jason wants to characterize Catholic teaching as 'works justification' but as you can see this is a reckless characterization.
The problem with 'faith alone' is that it divorces faith and works which is something that scripture does not allow. Just as the soul cannot be removed from the body neither can works of faith, love and charity be removed from faith.
SEAN AND STEPHANIE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Name one Church father that taught imputed righteousness alone apart from works of faith, love and charity.”
If your criterion for true doctrine is explicit primitive tradition, then that falsifies Roman Catholicism, which retreats into the theory of development to justify its theological innovations.
“James 2:24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Which is entirely compatible with sola fide. For starters, read Dan McCartney’s detailed exegesis in his recent commentary on James.
“Its not like the Church just made up infused righteousness in 1600 and acted like it was orthodoxy.”
True. Errors can creep into “the Church” at a far earlier date. Coincidentally, the Judaizers are a textbook example.
“The problem with 'faith alone' is that it divorces faith and works which is something that scripture does not allow.”
i) In Reformed theology, faith and works are inseparable. Whoever is justified is sanctified. These are, however, distinct categories.
ii) According to the Jesuit NT scholar Joseph Fitzmyer, in his commentary on Romans (which received the imprimi potest, imprimatur, and nihil obstat), Paul teaches sola fide.
Steve.
ReplyDeleteIf your criterion for true doctrine is explicit primitive tradition
Ah, but I am not the person who started a thread trying to argue that my belief about justification was taught by the church fathers!
In Reformed theology, faith and works are inseparable.
Oh, good. Than you can no longer say that 'faith alone' justifies.
Thankfully, everybody knows that Fitzmayer is not the living Magesterium and further everybody knows that a the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate.
As you must be aware, plenty of books by Catholic theologians expressing the exact opposite sentiments of Fitzmayer also have the Impritur and Nilhil Obstat.
SEAN AND STEPHANIE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Ah, but I am not the person who started a thread trying to argue that my belief about justification was taught by the church fathers!”
You may think you score some tactical points by that tit-for-tat, but it ducks the substantive question of whether you think Catholic dogma must be attested by explicit primitive tradition. Or is the theory of development sufficient?
If so, then what is good enough for Catholic theological method is good enough for Protestant theological method on pain of self-refutation.
“Oh, good. Than you can no longer say that 'faith alone' justifies.”
Are you really that simpleminded? To say that faith alone justifies is not to say that faith is separable from works. Rather, it’s to say that faith justifies, but works do not.
By what illogic to you infer that if faith is justificatory, but works are not, then faith and works are “divorceable”?
At most, it would be that they are separable in relation to justification, not separable in relation to each other. Or is that elementary logical distinction beyond you?
“Thankfully, everybody knows that Fitzmayer [sic] is not the living Magesterium [sic].”
Thankfully, everybody knows that Sean and Stephanie are not the living Magisterium–even though they play that role on the Internet.
“And further everybody knows that a the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church.”
I’d say a book with the Imprimatur is a cut above a lay Catholic epologist without an Imprimatur.
“It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical.”
Not to mention a Catholic insurance salesman who likes to spout off.
“It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility.”
Do the comments of Sean and/or Stephanie enjoy papal or conciliar approval–much less infallibility?
“It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate.”
And if the Imprimatur doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, then what about the accuracy of a Catholic insurance salesman or housewife who doesn’t even have the benefit of the Imprimatur?
“As you must be aware, plenty of books by Catholic theologians expressing the exact opposite sentiments of Fitzmayer [sic] also have the Impritur [sic] and Nilhil Obstat.”
In order words, Catholicism is a blueprint for anarchy.
Steve.
ReplyDeleteThe dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church can be found in the decrees of Her Councils. A good summary of this teaching is the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
To say that faith alone justifies is not to say that faith is separable from works. Rather, it’s to say that faith justifies, but works do not.
This is not how holy scripture treats faith and works.
Are you really that simpleminded?...Or is that elementary logical distinction beyond you?..Not to mention a Catholic insurance salesman who likes to spout off.
Nice. I don't think this type of sophistry is going to get you very far in the apologetic arena. You may have buddies chest bumping with you over this type of rhetoric but you aren't landing blows against the Catholic Church. I suppose I should be thankful that you didn't try to take a stab at making fun of my family.
Thankfully, everybody knows that Sean and Stephanie are not the living Magisterium–even though they play that role on the Internet.
Nice straw man.
I’d say a book with the Imprimatur is a cut above a lay Catholic epologist without an Imprimatur.
As I said already, there are manifold and plentiful examples of books with the Imrprimatur that turn Fitzmeyer on his head.
In order words, Catholicism is a blueprint for anarchy.
You would like the Imprimatur to mean something that it does not mean.
My writings do not have the Imprimatur but I have something better, the living Magesterium of the Catholic Church.
There are a lot of problems with Sean and Stephanie’s response:
ReplyDelete- He ignores the argumentation I had already provided in the material I linked.
- He changes the subject from whether justification is received through faith alone to “Reformed justification meaning imputed righteousness alone” and “Lutheran soteriology”. Not only was I not addressing those subjects, but I’ve argued in the past that belief in imputed righteousness, while important, isn’t essential. And I’m not a Lutheran.
- He asks me to “name the Church fathers”, even though his original claim involved all post-apostolic and pre-Reformation sources, not just the fathers, and even though I specified that I was addressing more than the fathers.
- He cites the usual passage from Alister McGrath, without any page number, and doesn’t interact with common Evangelical responses to McGrath’s assessment, such as my second point above. Is Sean and Stephanie just repeating a quote of McGrath that he found on the web, or does he know more about the subject?
- He wants me to show what the fathers “absolutely taught”, even though historical conclusions are matters of probability, not absolute conclusions. And much of what we have from the fathers is fragmentary, unclear, or inconsistent. We should be concerned with probability, not an absolute demonstration.
- He makes undisputed observations, such as that “Trent teaches that our works just as our faith is preceded by Grace , that is unmerited from God”, as if such observations are sufficient to address my objections. I’m aware of Catholicism’s inclusion of grace and faith in its gospel. See, for example, the thread here.
- His comments about the Catholic view of justification not only fail to address my argument against that view, but are so far removed from my argument as to suggest that he doesn’t know much about it. If he read the material I linked or any other relevant material I’ve written, his comments in this thread don’t seem to reflect that fact.
- The accusation that we “divorce faith and works” is misleading, for reasons Steve has explained.
- He says, “I am not the person who started a thread trying to argue that my belief about justification was taught by the church fathers”, but he was the one who made the assertion that sola fide is absent from both scripture and later pre-Reformation history. What significance does he think that alleged absence has, if he doesn’t think it has the significance Steve was addressing?
Jason.
ReplyDeleteYou know I am in the conversation. Common charity would dictate that you would address me and not refer to me in the third person.
This is your blog. You are the one putting forth arguments. I take it that Steve is your blog buddy/co-owner and he tried to come to the defense of your argument.
I have not read everything you've ever written on your blog. Your argument in this thread should stand on its own. Lambasting me for not being more familiar with other things you've written here is silly and detracts from the conversation.
In this thread you have argued that 'sola fide' was held and taught, at least by some, prior to the Reformation, although you cannot name a single father. You also referred to Catholic soteriology as 'justification by works', as if that label is remotely accurate.
There's no way to avoid addressing the Evangelical appeal to scripture.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this has been happening since St. Thomas More and Erasmus. Volumes have been written about the bible and justification from the Catholic Church. Volumes. To act like the case is closed on the bible is begging the question.
Alistair McGrath's findings are a big problem for the Protestant position although his findings are not unique. Besmirching me about page numbers is just an attempt to obfuscate. I have the book at my office. I'll give you the page numbers on Monday if you want.
He makes undisputed observations, such as that “Trent teaches that our works just as our faith is preceded by Grace , that is unmerited from God”
I only said that because you seemed to want to characterize the Catholic Church's teaching as 'works justification.' I know what you are trying to imply with that but I also know that canon 1 of the Council of Trent destroys that straw man.
- The accusation that we “divorce faith and works” is misleading, for reasons Steve has explained.
No. Its absolutely true. Straight from sacred scripture, the book of James. The 'soul and body' narrative. Luther, as you know called sacred scripture 'straw' and argued this letter to be stricken from the canon. Your church father Luther didn't hold sacred scripture in as high regard as you did he?
Nevertheless, thanks Jason for not attempting to attack my credibility based on my profession.
Sean and Stephanie writes:
ReplyDelete“You know I am in the conversation. Common charity would dictate that you would address me and not refer to me in the third person.”
I deny that it’s “common charity” to do what you’re requesting. When people can address multiple audiences, it’s common to address one audience rather than all of them or to shift from one to another in the process of a discussion. It happens frequently on the radio, in books, etc.
A more objective case can be made for your lack of charity in ignoring so much of the evidence I cited and changing the subject repeatedly.
You write:
“I have not read everything you've ever written on your blog.”
I didn’t ask you to.
You write:
“ Your argument in this thread should stand on its own.”
You say that after having repeatedly changed the subject.
You’ve included links in some of your posts, so what’s your objection? If you don’t want to take the time to read any of my linked material, despite your use of links in your own posts, then you should say so. I could summarize some of my material from the links if I thought it would be appropriate to do so, but don’t act as if including links is unreasonable. There's nothing inherently unreasonable about it, people do it a lot, and you’ve done it yourself.
You write:
“ In this thread you have argued that 'sola fide' was held and taught, at least by some, prior to the Reformation, although you cannot name a single father.”
How could you know that I “cannot name a single father”? And why would the citation of fathers be needed to refute your original claim?
You write:
“ You also referred to Catholic soteriology as 'justification by works', as if that label is remotely accurate.”
Whether such a phrase is accurate depends on what’s meant by it. The idea that I was unaware that Catholicism also includes grace and faith is ridiculous, and I gave you an example of a previous article in which I referred to the inclusion of grace and faith in the gospel of Catholicism. If you want to read my comments in the current discussion in such a ridiculous way and ignore the clarification I offered in response to your misunderstanding, then that’s your problem, not mine. Your suggestion that it would never be appropriate to use a phrase like “justification by works” to describe the Catholic gospel is irrational. That sort of terminology could have the meaning you assumed, but it could also be a reference to the inclusion of works without any intention of denying that more than works are involved. Instead of assuming that I had at least a basic knowledge of Catholic soteriology, instead of reading any of the material I linked, and instead of asking me for clarification, you apparently just assumed the worst.
Sean and Stephanie writes:
ReplyDelete“ Volumes have been written about the bible and justification from the Catholic Church. Volumes. To act like the case is closed on the bible is begging the question.”
I said that the Evangelical appeal to scripture has to be addressed. That’s not equivalent to saying that “the case is closed on the bible”.
You write:
“ Alistair McGrath's findings are a big problem for the Protestant position although his findings are not unique. Besmirching me about page numbers is just an attempt to obfuscate. I have the book at my office. I'll give you the page numbers on Monday if you want.”
I have the book, too, and I don’t need documentation. I was commenting on your use of the passage, not my own desire that the quote be documented.
You write:
“ I only said that because you seemed to want to characterize the Catholic Church's teaching as 'works justification.' I know what you are trying to imply with that but I also know that canon 1 of the Council of Trent destroys that straw man.”
Only if you assume that the type of justification through works rejected by Trent is the only type that’s relevant. It’s not. My position is that works are excluded from the gospel even if God’s grace is included before and with those works that are considered a means of justification. I’ve gone into this subject in some depth in the articles I’ve linked above. A good place to start would be here, since the thread addresses some of the objections you’ve raised here.
You write:
“ Its absolutely true. Straight from sacred scripture, the book of James.”
You seem to be confusing categories. I didn’t deny that scripture says that faith and works shouldn’t be separated. Rather, I said that it’s misleading to accuse Evangelicals of “divorcing faith and works”. We can distinguish between the two without divorcing them. The reason why there are different Greek terms used to refer to each is because they aren’t the same thing. Saying that justification occurs at the time of faith, accompanied by a distinction between faith and works, isn’t equivalent to “divorcing faith and works” in any relevant sense. If you want us to believe that James 2 disallows an Evangelical view of justification, then you need to argue for that position rather than just asserting it. It doesn’t speak well for your knowledge of the subject when you suggest that simply citing James 2 is sufficient. Where’s your interaction with an Evangelical reading of the passage?
You write:
“ Luther, as you know called sacred scripture 'straw' and argued this letter to be stricken from the canon. Your church father Luther didn't hold sacred scripture in as high regard as you did he?”
And many of the church fathers, Popes, cardinals, etc. have held different canons of scripture than you do. In addition to disagreeing with what Luther said about James, I agree with the acceptance of James by other reformers and the large majority of Protestants. Why raise the issue when it’s so irrelevant and you disagree with the Biblical canons of so many of your own predecessors?
Sean and Stephanie write:
ReplyDeleteAlistair McGrath's findings are a big problem for the Protestant position although his findings are not unique. Besmirching me about page numbers is just an attempt to obfuscate. I have the book at my office. I'll give you the page numbers on Monday if you want.
I own the book too; it's sitting in the bookcase next to this computer. That doesn't mean much of anything with respect to taking McGrath out of context, which is what the "usual" page numbers indicate--an uncritical copy-and-paste job from some website. Protestants have responded to this misuse of his work and McGrath has even commented on it himself:
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=1854&catid=7
Luther, as you know called sacred scripture 'straw' and argued this letter to be stricken from the canon.
Luther made that remark about James in comparison with other works of the Bible. See here:
http://www.ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20canon%202.htm#a5
The link also offers a useful corrective to the common rhetoric on Luther and James.
Your church father Luther didn't hold sacred scripture in as high regard as you did he?
Does any Protestant think Luther was a "church father" in the same manner Catholics view the "church fathers" as their own?
By the way, this statement doesn't make much sense. If Luther thought Scripture did not include James (which I don't grant as an accurate characterization), that doesn't tell us how he related to what he thought was Scripture as compared with how modern Protestants relate with Scripture.
Nevertheless, thanks Jason for not attempting to attack my credibility based on my profession.
From what I read, and Steve is free to correct me, he didn't attack your credibility based on your profession. He noted that your unsubstantiated dismissal of an approved Catholic scholar is meaningless given his credentials in comparison with yours. Your particular profession has nothing to do with it. Your status as a layman in relation to the authoritative structure of the Magisterium was the point.
Sean and Stephanie said:
ReplyDelete“James 2:24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”
Me:
That level of exegesis is about as good as the post-modernist who quotes, "Judge not lest ye be judged..." (Matthew 7:1) or the village atheist who quotes, "...there is no God..." (Psalm 14:1).
Here's some REAL exegesis:
“When James says that faith alone does not justify, faith here refers to mere intellectual assent. For instance, demons affirm monotheism, but such “faith” is not wholehearted and glad-hearted assent that leads demons to embrace Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Instead, the faith of demons is theologically orthodox, but leads them to shudder because they fear judgment (James 2:19). The faith that saves, according to Paul, embraces Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, placing one’s life entirely in his hands. James criticizes a “faith” that notionally concurs with the gospel but does not grip the whole person. In other words, James does not disagree with Paul’s contention that faith alone justifies, but he defines carefully the kind of faith that justifies. The faith that truly justifies can never be separated from works. Works will inevitably flow as the fruit of such faith. Faith that merely accepts doctrines intellectually but does not lead to a transformed life is “dead” (James 2:17, 26) and “useless” (James 2:20). Such faith does not “profit” (ophelos [James 2:14, 16 RSV]) in the sense that it does not spare one from judgment on the last day. Those who have dead and barren faith will not escape judgment. True faith is demonstrated by works (James 2:18). James does not deny that faith alone saves, but it is faith that produces (synergew) works and is completed (teleiow) by works (James 2:22). The faith that saves is living, active, and dynamic. It must produce works, just as compassion for the poor inevitably means that one cares practically for their physical needs (James 2:15-16)....The foregoing comments, of course, need qualification. As I argued above, in some contexts Paul also emphasizes that good works are the fruit of faith and are needed for justification (e.g., Rom. 2:13; 4:17-22). The purpose of James as a whole, as is evident from this entire discussion, is to emphasize that good works are necessary for salvation. His letter apparently responds to a situation where moral laxity was countenanced. Nevertheless, James should not be interpreted to teach that believers can gain salvation on the basis of good works. Righteous deeds are the fruit of faith. James recognizes that all believers sin in numerous ways (James 3:2), and that even one sin makes a lawbreaker of the one who commits it (James 2:10-11). Being sinners, humans lack the capacity to do the works required to merit justification. They are saved by the grace of God, for in his goodness and generosity he granted believers new life (James 1:18). Even faith is a gift of God, for God chose some to “be rich in faith and heirs of the kingdom” (James 2:5). What James hammers home is that such faith must always manifest itself in good works if it is genuine faith, but such good works are a far cry from perfection, as James 3:2 clarifies.”
-Thomas R. Schreiner, New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp.603-605.
How could you know that I “cannot name a single father”? And why would the citation of fathers be needed to refute your original claim?
ReplyDeleteI am not the one who is claiming anything. You are the one making claims and you clearly cannot back them up, otherwise you would.
Step 1) Make some outrageous claims about church history.
Step 2) Do not back those claims up...at all.
Step 3) Say that church history doesn't really matter anyway, only the bible matters.
Step 4) Completely disregard that its only one's interpretation of the bible that is being appealed to.
Step 5) Pretend that the other side does not have any biblical exegesis.
Step 6) Call the other person simple minded.
I get it.
The idea that I was unaware that Catholicism also includes grace and faith is ridiculous, and I gave you an example of a previous article in which I referred to the inclusion of grace and faith in the gospel of Catholicism
Who said that you were unaware of it?
Your suggestion that it would never be appropriate to use a phrase like “justification by works” to describe the Catholic gospel is irrational
No, its just a straw man. But after reading some other threads on this blog its clear that this is the modus operandi.
My position is that works are excluded from the gospel even if God’s grace is included before and with those works that are considered a means of justification.
And that position is false. "Works are excluded form the gospel?" Really?
"If you love me, you will keep my commandments." - John 14:15...I guess this has nothing to do with the gospel? There is a mountain of scripture that proves that works certainly are not excluded from the gospel.
Popes, cardinals, etc. have held different canons of scripture than you do.
Which Pope held a different canon than I do Jason?
How could you know that I “cannot name a single father”?
Because I am pretty sure you would have done so by now.
saying that justification occurs at the time of faith, accompanied by a distinction between faith and works, isn’t equivalent to “divorcing faith and works” in any relevant sense
Can one be justified but not be sanctified?
"Can one be justified but not be sanctified?"
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant to whether sanctification is a cause or prior condition of justification.
Irrelevant to whether sanctification is a cause or prior condition of justification.
ReplyDeleteJust answer the question. Yes or no.
Can one be justified but not be sanctified?
Sean, how about you respond to the response that was made to you regarding McGrath. Do you recant your posting on McGrath?
ReplyDeleteHow about you respond to the exegesis on James provided by Schreiner? Show us where he's wrong.
SEAN AND STEPHANIE SAID:
ReplyDelete“The dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church can be found in the decrees of Her Councils.
Show me an infallible list of her ecumenical councils.
“This is not how holy scripture treats faith and works.”
A tendentious assertion in lieu of an argument. What a surprise. You never disappoint my low expectations.
“Nice. I don't think this type of sophistry is going to get you very far in the apologetic arena.”
Your ellipsis conveniently omits my supporting argument. You have no counterargument. Just an ellipsis.
“You may have buddies chest bumping with you over this type of rhetoric but you aren't landing blows against the Catholic Church.”
Says who? You don’t speak for the church of Rome. You have no institutional standing.
“Nice straw man.”
To the contrary, you behave as though your opinion trumps Fitzmyer. So, yes, you’re acting like a one-man magisterium.
“As I said already, there are manifold and plentiful examples of books with the Imrprimatur that turn Fitzmeyer [sic] on his head.”
Fitzmyer with the Imprimatur beats you without it.
“You would like the Imprimatur to mean something that it does not mean.”
Quote me on that.
“My writings do not have the Imprimatur but I have something better, the living Magesterium [sic] of the Catholic Church.”
As if Fitzmyer does not. And do you think the ecclesiastical approval process that Fitzmyer had to go through is not an expression of the Magisterium?
“You know I am in the conversation. Common charity would dictate that you would address me and not refer to me in the third person.”
Jason couldn’t address you as an individual since you post under the names of “Sean and Stephanie.”
So should he address you as “Sean,” “Stephanie,” your maiden name, or what?
“I hate to be the bearer of bad news but this has been happening since St. Thomas More and Erasmus. Volumes have been written about the bible and justification from the Catholic Church. Volumes. To act like the case is closed on the bible is begging the question.”
Like Fitzmyer’s commentary on Romans, you mean? What about Luke Timothy Johnson’s commentary on James?
“No. Its absolutely true. Straight from sacred scripture, the book of James. The 'soul and body' narrative.”
As if evangelical exegetes like Douglas Moo and Dan McCartney haven’t dealt with that. You’re behind the curve–as usual.
“Luther, as you know called sacred scripture 'straw' and argued this letter to be stricken from the canon. Your church father Luther didn't hold sacred scripture in as high regard as you did he?”
I’m not Lutheran. Neither is Jason. For that matter, even Lutherans don’t go along with Luther on that issue. Didn’t you know that?
You attacked Fitzmyer’s credibility based on the fact that he wasn’t the pope. So, yes, you’re making professional qualifications an issue.
“Just answer the question. Yes or no.”
That’s a popular tactic of crooked lawyers.
In conclusion, this thread, "Sola Fide between the Apostles and the Reformation" has not even attempted to prove "sola fide between the apostles and the reformation."
ReplyDeleteThe rules on this 'theology' blog are that the big boy reformed club does not need to prove assertions or substantiate claims but people who come by and disagree are expected to exegete the book of James anew even though its been done before 1,000 times over. This is like asking every passerby to to exegetically prove the hypostatic union but I doubt you do this.
I really don't want to waste any time in a one way dialog. A place where simple questions like, "Can you be justified and not be sanctified" are countered with, "EXEGETE THE BIBLE FOR ME YOU SIMPLE MINDED INSURANCE SALESMAN!"
Oh, and the 'Since you don't have an Imprimatur in your posts you cannot possibly be representing the Catholic faith' is a rich tactic. "Let's see, rather than engage in real dialog with a Catholic that comes by, after all, most of our blog is designed to convince Catholics not to be Catholic, lets just create a rule that we do not have to address the Catholics here because they do not have an Imprimatur."
What a joke.
Since I became an adult about 15 years ago I feel like I have already paid my dues playing childish schoolyard games.
You guys can have the playground to yourselves.
And splat goes another proto-Protestant.
ReplyDeleteJust deal with the arguments. You think we don't see any rude Romanists or EOdox here or other blogs? Grow up.
Sean and Stephanie said...
ReplyDelete"This is your blog. You are the one putting forth arguments. I take it that Steve is your blog buddy/co-owner and he tried to come to the defense of your argument.
I have not read everything you've ever written on your blog. Your argument in this thread should stand on its own. Lambasting me for not being more familiar with other things you've written here is silly and detracts from the conversation."
12/12/2009 12:17 PM
Sean and Stephanie said...
"The rules on this 'theology' blog are that the big boy reformed club does not need to prove assertions or substantiate claims but people who come by and disagree are expected to exegete the book of James anew even though its been done before 1,000 times over. This is like asking every passerby to to exegetically prove the hypostatic union but I doubt you do this."
12/13/2009 6:54 AM
Ah, I see! Sean and Stephanie's modus operandi is: "I can make assertions and rest on previous work, you guys cannot. Wonderful rules you play by Sean and Stephanie.
Sean and Stephanie wrote:
ReplyDelete"I am not the one who is claiming anything. You are the one making claims and you clearly cannot back them up, otherwise you would."
You've made many claims. To say otherwise is careless or dishonest. For example, my exchanges with you began after you commented, in another thread, that "Apparently there were no Christians before Luther nor is Christianity taught in the bible." You've also made other claims.
And whether I have supported my own claims depends, in part, on what's contained in the articles I linked earlier. If you refuse to consult those articles, it doesn't follow that I therefore didn't support my claims.
Even if I hadn't offered any support previously, it wouldn't follow that I have no support. I've been trying to resolve some disagreements I have with you on some preliminary issues, like whether the church fathers are the only relevant sources between the apostles and the Reformation and whether I need to show that they "absolutely" held a particular view. If I try to resolve such issues before going on to discuss the evidence you say you want me to discuss, it doesn't follow that I don't have that evidence.
I've discussed such evidence on this blog and elsewhere in the past, including briefly in one of the articles I linked above. I'll be discussing it further in a new thread I plan to put up either later today or tomorrow.
You write:
"Step 1) Make some outrageous claims about church history."
You haven't demonstrated that anything I said was an "outrageous claim about church history".
You write:
"Step 2) Do not back those claims up...at all."
You say that as you ignore the material I linked earlier, ignore other relevant posts in this blog's archives, and ignore the fact that I've been trying to clarify some preliminary issues before discussing the evidence you're asking for.
You write:
"Step 3) Say that church history doesn't really matter anyway, only the bible matters."
I didn't say that. To the contrary, I said that "other data, like the patristic evidence, is significant and should be addressed". You keep making claims that can easily be shown to be false.
Sean and Stephanie writes:
ReplyDelete"Step 4) Completely disregard that its only one's interpretation of the bible that is being appealed to."
No, when I cite a text and its context, there's more than my interpretation involved. Yes, my interpretation is part of the process, but so is your interpretation of patristic documents, papal documents, etc. And I can cite, and have cited and will cite, patristic scholars and other people agreeing with my interpretations.
You write:
"Step 5) Pretend that the other side does not have any biblical exegesis."
I don't deny that the other side offers its own interpretations and argumentation. But I disagree with them, and I explain why.
You write:
"Step 6) Call the other person simple minded."
You seem to have an above average level of knowledge and intelligence, but much of what you're saying in the context of this discussion is wrong and, yes, sometimes simplistic.
You write:
"Who said that you were unaware of it?"
If you knew I was aware of the Catholic view, and my terminology could be read either way (as consistent with the Catholic view or not consistent with it), why would you interpret what I said as inconsistent with the Catholic view?
You write:
"'If you love me, you will keep my commandments.' - John 14:15...I guess this has nothing to do with the gospel?"
Again, something can be an implication of the gospel without being a part of the gospel itself. Justification can result in works without works being a means of attaining or maintaining justification.
You write:
"Which Pope held a different canon than I do Jason?"
I didn't just mention Popes. Do you deny that men like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Athanasius advocated a different canon than you do? The Roman Catholic patristic scholar Joseph Lienhard wrote:
"For the first fifteen centuries of Christianity, no Christian Church put forth a definitive list of biblical books. Most Christians had followed St. Augustine and included the 'Apocrypha' in the canon, but St. Jerome, who excluded them, had always had his defenders." (The Bible, The Church, And Authority [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1995], p. 59)
As far as Popes are concerned, is it your position that every Roman bishop in church history held the same Old and New Testament canons you do today, despite the variety of canons held by other sources? That seems highly unlikely on its face.
And we have specific evidence of canonical disagreements among the bishops of Rome. See the sections on Gregory the Great and Leo X here. The Roman Catholic New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1990), edited by Raymond Brown, et al., comments that "Those who prefer the shorter canon or express some doubt about the full canonical status of the deutero-canonicals include...Gregory the Great" (p. 1042).
Saint and Sinner,
ReplyDeleteThe passage you cite from Schreiner is not really an exegesis. It is an attempt to fit James 2:24 into a theological system. That is very different from determining the meaning of James 2:24. In fact, his basic method for fitting James 2:24 into his system is simply asserting it does not mean what it says. He does not say why it does not mean that other than because it would contradict his thinking. He is more shouting down James 2:24 than exegeting it. You don't see it because you are happy to help him shout it down.
James 2:24: You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone
Now if justification and sanctification are distinct categories then which category does this fall into? It talks about works so it must be sanctification. But it uses the word "justified". So it means separating these two cannot allow us to understand this verse fully. Nothing Mr Schreiner says addresses this problem.
The other thing we must see is that Sola Fide is not always heretical from a Catholic point of view. It can be a misleading phrase which is why scripture does not embrace it. It can also be understood in a way that is compatible with Trent.
It is simple logic. We are justified by grace from first to last. We are justified by works and not by faith alone. Therefore some works are a result of grace and do play a role in justification. Can they be also seen as a result of faith? Sure. But God allows our works to play a role in our justification. So it crosses the line drawn between faith and works.
RANDY SAID:
ReplyDelete"In fact, his basic method for fitting James 2:24 into his system is simply asserting it does not mean what it says." That simply begs the question by assuming that Paul and James use the same word to mean the same thing–which is naive.
And if you want more detailed exegesis, a good place to start is McCartney's commentary, both on that passage and his excursus.
RANDY SAID:
ReplyDelete"The passage you cite from Schreiner is not really an exegesis. It is an attempt to fit James 2:24 into a theological system."
Of course, that's exactly what Catholics do. They try to fit both Pauline and Jacobean statements into their preexisting, Tridentine system of theology.