I had the privilege to work with Geoff Robinson and some of
the team who were reaching out to Roman Catholics last week. Because of my
personal situation this summer, I wasn’t able to do as much as I had liked.
However, there were a few over-runs on the expenses, and Geoff provides links
below and it would be great if someone could help out with these a bit.
Meanwhile, here is Geoff’s recap of the week:
[JB note: My blog posts on the “Joint Declaration” were a result of some quick research I did in response to questions on this question]... after our daily witness to the World Meeting of Families, we headed to the suburban transportation centers. We decided it would be next to near impossible to get everyone coordinated in the city. We don't need to see the pope. We just wanted to get to the people.Well, as far as I can tell we were the only ones with that idea, at least on the South Jersey side of things. [Several of us] had a successful witness in some of the SEPTA stations....I estimate we gave out about 4,000-5,000 broadsides this weekend. People were in a rush so we didn't have a ton of conversations, but there were a few.Again, the consistent thing I'm hearing from Catholics is that they are deceived by both Catholic and Protestant leaders into thinking that there is no difference between Catholic and Protestant teaching on justification.
I tried to cut through that by emphasizing what Paul tells us about adding works to justification: if you rely on works of the law you are under a curse, because they have to be perfect.I ran into the folks at Jeremiah Cry ministries heading into the city. They are a Reformed street preaching ministry. They were sharing the gospel in the city. God bless those guys they were such an encouragement to just run into them.So, besides praying for everyone who read or heard the message of God's free grace in Christ, the main takeaway I would give to all of you is that our team and others proclaimed the gospel to a lot of Catholics who didn't even know there was a difference between us. (Some did know and would just say something like "James" while walking by.)Many thousands in our home area of Philadelphia and beyond now know there is a difference. And this difference isn't an inconsequential difference. If that is the bare minimum of how the Lord used this, this opens up opportunities. And it should remind us that there are many who are essentially "unreached" in my opinion in our own back yard.We had 4 law/gospel broadsides. All were written with Roman Catholics in mind. 2 specifically mentioned that we have disagreements with Rome (we mentioned and quoted Trent). We got reactions and conversations mostly from the two that respectfully mentioned our disagreements. So another lesson: don't hide your difference for fear of offending. Pointing out disagreements leads to clarity and can give opportunities for making the gospel message more clear for people.One item of business before I leave you. Ammi Ministry graciously bought $180 worth of SEPTA tokens for our campaigners. We also need some extra money for incidental expenses and I wanted to give the church that housed us during the week a donation for being gracious hosts to us.If the Lord leads you to give, please help defray some of these costs.In Him,Geoff Robinson
"I tried to cut through that by emphasizing what Paul tells us about adding works to justification: if you rely on works of the law you are under a curse, because they have to be perfect."
ReplyDeleteGood thing RCism agrees then. That does not entail there are no disagreements elsewhere though.
At what point does the Roman Catholic achieve a righteousness of his own that's say, the equivalent of what "the imputed righteousness of Christ" is? Do you agree that that's the standard? Because that's the Biblical standard.
DeleteInfused righteousness gratuitously given as justification is compatible with "I tried to cut through that by emphasizing what Paul tells us about adding works to justification: if you rely on works of the law you are under a curse, because they have to be perfect." An RC could give that same message in evangelization - more would be needed to get at the differences.
ReplyDeleteExcept for one small thing. The Roman Catholic version is a bait-and-switch. Infused righteousness happens at the moment of baptism; then the Roman Catholic spends the rest of his/her life hoping to be "good enough". That would be, the conscientious Roman Catholic. Most Roman Catholics don't even care about being "good enough".
DeleteThere's no bait and switch. Infused righteousness - the gift of sanctifying grace (faith, hope, and love) - is given freely at justification. One can kill charity and drive out the indwelling of the holy spirit via mortal sin. Alternatively, one may graciously grow in those gifts and deepen their participation in the divine life via charity. That doesn't mean one must fret about being "good enough" or somehow "make up the difference" or - as you earlier characterized - be on a performance treadmill. Sanctification is a necessary part of salvation in your view - you have to "do stuff" after regeneration/justification that if you don't do shows you were never justified in the first place and were simply self-deceived no matter your sincerity. I take it you don't therefore hold that Calvinists spend the rest of his/her life hoping to be "good enough" to prove their regeneration and justification genuine rather than false or a deception.
ReplyDeleteIt is a bait and switch. Saving "justification" is clearly lost and regained through the "sacramental" process. In terms of "stuff you gotta do" in the Roman Catholic religious system -- its not "feed the hungry" etc that are the "works" that must be done. The "sacramental treadmill" is all an after-the-fact construct of "stuff to do" that wasn't codified until the early middle ages. Actual Roman Catholic practice is not biblical at all. Nor is it "early church".
DeleteFor the Reformed, "works" are not required for "justification". They are the fruit of justification and evidence -- we do not have to "do stuff" -- just as a tree does not have to be diligent to "grow fruit" -- it just grows and is a natural product of our justification (and it does include biblical "works", as in James 2, such as feed the hungry, etc.
Restoration from mortal sin is also unmerited - the gift of repentance cannot be earned through natural effort.
ReplyDeleteOne can mortally sin against charity - that could include a sin against feeding the hungry or any of the other corporal or spiritual works of mercy - either via ommission or commission.
"Nor is it "early church". "
The problem with that statement as well as Schreiner's which you cited earlier is that "faith alone" is an ambiguous term - does "faith alone" refer to faith formed by charity (a la Benedict's statement where he agreed "faith alone" is correct if it is not opposed to charity) or does it refer to a faith devoid of or apart from charity? Further since you made "imputed righteousness" the "biblical standard" above, one would need to show the early church held to that over and against infused righteousness as justification. Augustine's "goof" as you put it doesn't explain why he wasn't widely criticized or corrected for that - in your perspective, minority and erroneous - view, nor does it explain why the Eastern early church blew soteriology and sacramentology in a similar fashion.
"For the Reformed, "works" are not required for "justification". They are the fruit of justification and evidence -"
Right - and works are the fruit of justification in RCism as Trent states. And if they're not evident, then you or your church should engage in discipline and perhaps even doubt your salvation and whether your justification and regeneration was genuine in the first place since sanctification is an inevitable and necessary part of salvation. So you "gotta do them". And those works would also include partaking of the means of grace, such as the lord's supper, baptism, hearing the word preached, etc, not just works of charity James outlines.
Restoration from mortal sin is also unmerited - the gift of repentance cannot be earned through natural effort.
DeleteExcept you gotta make a natural effort to get to Confession. If you don't do that, "restoration" is not forthcoming.
One can mortally sin against charity - that could include a sin against feeding the hungry or any of the other corporal or spiritual works of mercy - either via ommission or commission.
But it's the "Precepts of the Church" that are required -- "works of mercy" are merely optional.
"faith alone" is an ambiguous term - does "faith alone" refer to faith formed by charity (a la Benedict's statement where he agreed "faith alone" is correct if it is not opposed to charity) or does it refer to a faith devoid of or apart from charity?
What in the world is "faith formed by charity"? That is far more ambiguous than "faith alone". Before I respond to another rabbit-hole question from you, tell me precisely what "faith formed by charity" is.
Further since you made "imputed righteousness" the "biblical standard" above, one would need to show the early church held to that over and against infused righteousness as justification.
It doesn't matter what the early church did or didn't hold. What matters is the "biblical standard". We've shown in lots of places here that it was spotty -- but nor was it an emphasis.
Augustine's "goof" as you put it doesn't explain why he wasn't widely criticized or corrected for that - in your perspective, minority and erroneous - view
If you would even just scroll down through the Augustine's Goof article, you'd see how the Hebrew language -- the Biblical concept -- was lost as especially the Latin church lost touch not only with Hebrew, but with Greek as well by Augustine's time. Your objection here carries no weight at all.
Aside from that, Hilary and Ambrose and Lactantius and Ambrosiaster, all were western, all pre-dated Augustine, but they all wrote of "justification by faith", "faith alone", and even imputation.
There is no such thing in Augustine as an "exchange". Augustine is the one who introduced the concept of "inherent righteousness". Why did Augustine change things? Because he had no idea of the Hebrew meaning.
nor does it explain why the Eastern early church blew soteriology and sacramentology in a similar fashion.
Chrysostom WAS one of the leading advocates of "faith alone". Both Needham (in McCormack) and Oden cite him extensively.
Aside from that, NO ONE was required to go to communion, go to confession, for that matter, NOT MISS MASS ON SUNDAY. Both east and west were concerned about "who was greatest". After the split, Rome had no check on its crazy ideas ... that's when it put "the treadmill" in place.
Delete***
Right - and works are the fruit of justification in RCism as Trent states.
But these "works" contain "merit" -- It is Augustine's "inherent righteousness" -- which "increases justification" even though it (a) cannot come close to the righteousness of Christ, but which (b) is nevertheless bought and sold and traded like baseball cards in "the treasury of merit".
Why don't you keep apples with apples, instead of veering off on other topics?
But still, these "works" are heavily weighted toward the Roman sacraments.
And if they're not evident, then you or your church should engage in discipline and perhaps even doubt your salvation and whether your justification and regeneration was genuine in the first place since sanctification is an inevitable and necessary part of salvation. So you "gotta do them".
No one needs do what you think they "should" do. And discipline is not over "lack of works" -- it occurs only when there is overt sin. You need to get your facts straight.
The fact is, Medieval Rome, finding itself without its eastern counterweight, felt that it had the "authority" to put into place and to enforce a completely unbiblical system, and to enforce that unbiblical system, against whatever consciences that were in place during that period. The Reformation had to happen -- it had to make the distinctions it did in order to jettison the unbiblical accretions that were getting out of hand. One of which was -- not called this -- but the "sacramental treadmill" -- the "works" of Roman law. Those are the first things that were jettisoned. And isn't it funny, even Vatican II Rome had to try to change the subject -- making an 8th sacrament now, "The Church" as "Sacrament of Salvation". To take people's minds off of what a monstrosity its Tridentine sacramental system was.
DeletePart of restoration includes the desire to go to confession in the first place, so no it's not a semi-pelagian process as you imply. Works of mercy are not optional - one can commit mortal sin via omission as well as commission.
ReplyDeleteFaith formed by charity is faith enlivened, quickened, and animated by charity, just as the body is formed by the soul. The end or goal of faith is charity and union with God. It is the faith described by Gal 5:6, 1 Cor 13:2, 1 Cor 13:13, Eph 3:17, Rom 5:5, Col 3:14, Rom 1:17, 1 Jn 3:14, James 2:14-26. From the German conference of bishops: "Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously bestowed love can justify. Having mere faith without love, merely considering something true, does not justify us. But if one understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense, then faith includes conversion, hope, and love and the Lutheran formula [by faith alone] can have a good Catholic sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes ... hope in God, and love for God. These are not external additions and supplements to faith, but unfoldings of the inner essence of faith itself."
This is why justified deathbeds and babies without works are saved just the same as normal adults - charity is a virtue residing in the will and forming their faith in all cases.
So it wasn't just Augustine who goofed, but the entire western and eastern church before and after him who apparently shared Augustine's linguistic ignorance? I believe the Eastern church had a handle on Greek.
"but they all wrote of "justification by faith", "faith alone", and even imputation. "
Which I already addressed. Terms are not the issue, definitions and meanings are. Aquinas and Pelagius used the term sola fide - are you going to seriously posit either held to Protestant justification?
"Aside from that, NO ONE was required"
So the sacraments were optional in East and West?
"But these "works" contain "merit" -- It is Augustine's "inherent righteousness""
One was already inherently righteous at justification. Merit doesn't "make up the difference".
"And discipline is not over "lack of works" -- it occurs only when there is overt sin. You need to get your facts straight."
So overt sin cannot be committed via acts of omission according to the Reformed? And given the conflation of concupiscence, venial, and mortal sin in your perspective, I fail to see how distinguishing between overt or non-overt sin in this case is justified. Regardless, sanctification is necessary to salvation in your view. Sanctification includes stuff "you gotta do" - if that stuff is not done you are to be disciplined and maybe even doubt your justification/regeneration was genuine in the first place. So your objection in this regard is self-defeating.