tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post2265858947576766310..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Is Francis Beckwith Saved?Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger82125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-91546670165820482212010-06-30T21:32:45.728-04:002010-06-30T21:32:45.728-04:00Francis Beckwith continues to believe in the Apost...Francis Beckwith continues to believe in the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the trustworthiness of Scriptures, including with regard to everything they teach on salvation. He makes this clear in his book Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic, in which he also says that he continues to regard himself as an Evangelical such as found in the statement of faith of the Evangelical Theological Society. I wonder if any others on this blog have read Beckwith's Return to Rome: Confessions of an Evangelical Catholic.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14084250626712188337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-40203753621161268562009-12-23T18:41:40.742-05:002009-12-23T18:41:40.742-05:00latitude,
I don't have much time at this poin...latitude,<br /><br />I don't have much time at this point, and I don't want to spend what time I do have on a further discussion of the essentials of the faith in ancient Judaism. You haven't explained what relevance you think that subject has to this thread, and you haven't made much of an effort to accurately represent or interact with what I've already said.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-36074363029306956782009-12-23T18:37:55.988-05:002009-12-23T18:37:55.988-05:00Stephen Barrett,
Are you going to interact with w...Stephen Barrett,<br /><br />Are you going to interact with what I said in response to previous criticisms like yours? Or do you just want to tell us about how upset you are by my post and how upset you are by other opponents of Catholicism who have little to do with what I wrote?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-63564386370168279972009-12-21T14:14:00.694-05:002009-12-21T14:14:00.694-05:00I was hoping you could be more specific than he be...I was hoping you could be more specific than he believed what first-century Jews believed. I’m interested in knowing what you think constituted justificatory faith in the example of the tax collector, i.e., what was the propositional content of his faith alone when he cast himself on the mercy of God?varietyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197587758094541983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64657841644809251072009-12-20T18:46:27.409-05:002009-12-20T18:46:27.409-05:00I would like to add a correction to my final comme...I would like to add a correction to my final comments. They were typed in a hurry and as soon as I noticed the error, I had to get moving: <br /><br />The following: <br />"One thing you said which I couldn't agree with at all; "What conclusion does the balance of evidence point to? I'm too ignorant of the relevant facts, and have given the subject too little thought, to reach a confident conclusion." Amen to that, brother."<br /><br />Should have read (and I'm using all caps out of my desire not to get tangled with computer codes...otherwise I'd have used boldface and italics.) ...<br /><br />""One thing you said which I couldn't DISAGREE with at all; I'm too ignorant of the relevant facts, and have given the subject too little thought, to reach a confident conclusion." Amen to that, brother."Steven P. Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672137939858744253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57618522520776146332009-12-20T18:36:46.725-05:002009-12-20T18:36:46.725-05:00Mr. Engwer,as a Catholic, and former Baptist (for ...Mr. Engwer,as a Catholic, and former Baptist (for a while) I can say without any hesitation whatsoever -- what you said about Francis Beckwith's Christian faith, salvation and even resorting to the cheapest trick of so many evangelicals when they resort to high n' mighty "God Bless (Protestant) America rhetorical flourishes -- is pure HOGWASH. <br /><br />You should be ashamed of yourself and the black eye you gave Evangelical Protestantism. I can just see Chuck Colson, Ron Sider, Billy Graham, Rick Warren and other more reasoned and less jingoistically inclined men of higher stature becoming sick upon reading what you said. <br /><br />What you implied has long been implied by Protestants for years against Catholics ever since we arrived on our shores in great numbers following the Potato Famine, "western Civilization's" first use of genocide engineered by English Protestant officials to rid Ireland of a significant portion of her native Irish population, the vast majority of whom happened to be Catholic. In order to receive ANY charity food offering, Catholic children in County Mayo were expected to join the Quakers who provided it in poor houses that were nothing more than glorified poor barracks. <br /><br />Ah, but when we arrived on these shores made ever more glorious by anti-Catholic bigotry, what were we greeted with? A civil war; in which if any Catholic from any land arriving here needing work could always find it either as a draftee or a paid substitute for a (no doubt good righeous Protestant who felt so long as his salvation was already intact, the lesson of the lambs and goats need not apply ... especially any part of it dealing with works, explicitly stated or otherwise ... why he could just pay off some Irish O'Malley or Bavarian Bauer to do his fighting, bleedin' and damn dying for him. <br /><br />Catholic blood was always good for the sheddin' -- but Catholic equality, hah! was another matter entirely. Have you heard of the Blaine Act, or Jim Crow for Catholics? By the way...it's still on the books!<br /> <br />And for you, Mr. Engwer, to wrap your peculiar brand (well, I hope it's a VERY peculiar) of Evangelical Protestantism around -- Old Glory or the other way around, what you're doing and saying insofar as the nitpicking judgmentalism that reeks from your statements, is no more than what the early Reds did during the Russian Revolution. For some 80 years+ since, and despite billions of gallons of blood shed over small picayune issues that divided the Reds due to their incessant desires to demonstrate their own brand of exegetical nonsense ... you sir, seemed to have not learned anything from the dangers of that. Nor have you learned anything about St. Paul's eventual recognition of St. Peter's authoritative leadership, nor even what Jesus meant when he said the Gates of Hell would open wide before he allowed its leaders to embrace error. If your "facts" or interpretation held up, even on the smallest margins of "truth," none of us would even be here and most likely the earth would look as barren as the moon.<br /><br />Or for that matter, as barren as your arguments against Dr. Beckwith. One thing you said which I couldn't agree with at all; "What conclusion does the balance of evidence point to? I'm too ignorant of the relevant facts, and have given the subject too little thought, to reach a confident conclusion." Amen to that, brother.Steven P. Barretthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06672137939858744253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-58671289993325739602009-12-18T18:59:04.588-05:002009-12-18T18:59:04.588-05:00latitude writes:
"What kind of assumptions a...latitude writes:<br /><br /><b><i>"What kind of assumptions are you supposing that Jesus’ example surely carried?"</i></b> <br /><br />The kind I went on to discuss in the sentences just after the one you quoted.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74056125670753892612009-12-18T13:30:46.564-05:002009-12-18T13:30:46.564-05:00Jason wrote, “Only if your example carries with it...Jason wrote, “Only if your example carries with it the sort of assumptions that Jesus' example surely carried.”<br /><br />What kind of assumptions are you supposing that Jesus’ example surely carried?varietyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197587758094541983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-19956689795163009422009-12-17T01:33:58.090-05:002009-12-17T01:33:58.090-05:00Hi Jason,
We could go round and round on this for...Hi Jason,<br /><br />We could go round and round on this forever, and keep trying to poke holes in each other's arguments. Again, I think you have answered very well from within your paradigm. You can have the last word.<br /><br />Thanks for sticking entirely to theology and avoiding any hint of personal attack. How refreshing, and a model to be emulated.<br /><br />Merry Christmas to you and yours and all here.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-50087940269956953202009-12-17T00:24:29.731-05:002009-12-17T00:24:29.731-05:00And concerning Revelation 20:11-13, Dave Armstrong...And concerning Revelation 20:11-13, Dave Armstrong wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Same thing again. Obviously, St. John, St. Paul, and our Lord Jesus need to attend a good Calvinist or evangelical seminary and get up to speed on their soteriology. They don't get it. The passage should have been written something like the following: '. . . and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone.'"</i></b> <br /><br />Again, since the judgment involves more than justification, I wouldn't expect a focus on how justification was attained. The unrighteous are condemned for their sin. The fact that they could have been saved from that condemnation through faith doesn't suggest that a discussion of their judgment should focus on faith. Law courts don't focus on what a criminal could have done to avoid punishment. And since judgment of the whole life is in view, not just judgment of the portion in which the righteous were justified, I would expect the works of the righteous to be judged. It doesn't follow that they attained justification through works.<br /><br />Since you affirm that faith is a means of justification, along with works, you also have to explain why such passages don't mention faith. My explanation is that the judgment of works isn't primarily about justification. The unrighteous are condemned for their sin, and the righteous are judged for their works and vindicated without their justification being attained through those works. Since I consider these passages to be primarily about non-justificatory issues, I don't expect any focus on faith. But if you want us to believe that the passages are primarily about how justification is attained, then why don't they mention faith?<br /><br />When we go on to the next two chapters in Revelation, we're reminded that eternal life is a free gift (21:6, 22:17). Justification through faith alone, a faith that results in works, not only explains why the justified are described as righteous in their behavior, but also explains the many Biblical passages that refer to people being justified as soon as they believe, as a free gift of grace and apart from works, on the basis of Christ's finished work. The fact that your gospel involves faith doesn't reconcile that gospel with those Biblical themes, since you're trying to reconcile those themes with works at the same time. Your gospel places works in passages that only mention faith, makes the free gift of eternal life something that must be worked for, and claims to exclude works only to bring in a different system of works to replace the ones excluded. That's a long way from Genesis 15:6.<br /><br />Regarding baptism, see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/11/saving-faith-prior-to-baptism.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-77202205092332611802009-12-17T00:23:55.452-05:002009-12-17T00:23:55.452-05:00Concerning John 5:28-29, Dave Armstrong writes:
&...Concerning John 5:28-29, Dave Armstrong writes:<br /><br /><b><i>"A direct correlation: the ones who do good works are saved; the ones who do evil are damned."</i></b> <br /><br />Yes, the regenerate are justified for good works (Ephesians 2:10) and can be described as the righteous in contrast to the unrighteous. But their status after this life, at the time of the resurrection, doesn't tell us how they attained justification. The works of Ephesians 2:10 don't disprove the earlier exclusion of works in Ephesians 2:8-9.<br /><br />Here's your attempt to explain what Jesus said a few verses earlier, in John 5:24:<br /><br /><b><i>"I have explained that this is a generalized statement: one could perhaps paraphrase it as 'Christian believers have eternal life' or (to bring it down to a Sunday School nursery level): 'all good Christians go to heaven.'"</i></b> <br /><br />You're using phrases that can include more than faith, but the passage only mentions faith. And, as I said earlier, such comments come from Jesus in the midst of a ministry in which He forgave, pronounced peace, and healed people upon their coming to faith (see <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/06/early-teaching-of-sola-fide-outside-of.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>). To include baptism or other works in the passage wouldn't make sense textually or contextually. A faith that results in justification, then produces a life of good works, on the other hand, explains both John 5:24 and 5:28-29.<br /><br />Regarding Romans 2:6-8 and 2:13, you write:<br /><br /><b><i>"Again, works are directly tied to eternal life and justification; they are not portrayed as merely acts of gratefulness that will lead to differential rewards for he saved; no, the differential reward is either salvation or damnation."</i></b> <br /><br />I take both passages to be part of Paul's case leading up to the charge of universal guilt in Romans 3. None of us live up the standards he's setting down (Romans 3:9-23).<br /><br />Concerning 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9:<br /><br /><b><i>"Note that simply believing the gospel and knowing God is not enough for salvation. One has to also 'obey the gospel' (and that involves works)."</i></b> <br /><br />The passage is about the punishment of the unrighteous. It's not about how to attain justification. The fact that the unrighteous are punished for their behavior doesn't prove that justification is attained partially through works. And the righteous can be described as people who obey the gospel without the implication that they attained justification through works.<br /><br />You write the following about Revelation 2:5:<br /><br /><b><i>"If we don't do the works, we can lose our salvation; therefore works have to do with salvation; they are not separated from that by abstracting them into a separate category of sanctification, that is always distinguished from justification."</i></b> <br /><br />Jesus is addressing a local church. Local churches aren't justified, so they don't have any justification to lose.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-57412610177385936202009-12-17T00:23:05.575-05:002009-12-17T00:23:05.575-05:00Dave Armstrong wrote:
"Since the Catholic be...Dave Armstrong wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"Since the Catholic believes in the triumvirate of GRACE--->faith--->works as the criteria for salvation, passages dealing with faith pose no problem. The more the merrier."</i></b> <br /><br />For reasons I explained earlier, a passage that only mentions faith can't be assumed to include works as well. The fact that the Catholic gospel includes faith doesn't explain passages that don't mention works. And I gave several examples of passages that only mention faith or suggest the exclusion of baptism and other works by their context (Genesis 15:6, Mark 2:5, Luke 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-46, Galatians 3:2, etc.). You haven't been interacting with those passages.<br /><br />If I were to cite John 13:8 as evidence of justification through a triumvirate of grace, faith, and foot washing, it wouldn't make sense for me to respond to passages that only mention faith, or whose context suggests the exclusion of foot washing, by saying "The more the merrier." If my gospel places justification at the time of foot washing, then passages that instead place it prior to foot washing, at the time of faith, are inconsistent with my gospel. The fact that my gospel and the passages in question both involve faith doesn't reconcile the two.<br /><br />Regarding the works passages you've been citing, it needs to be kept in mind that faith comes before works. The inner man moves the outer man to action. Passages about good works imply faith. But, as I mentioned earlier, faith can exist in the heart prior to the works that result from it. And scripture repeatedly refers to justification as occurring through that faith in the heart (Acts 15:7-11, Romans 10:10). Since faith exists before works, it requires more than a mention of faith in a passage in order to conclude that works are involved as well. In contrast, passages about good works, such as the judgment passages, imply a faith that not only is present, but is the root of those works.<br /><br />Commenting on Matthew 25:34-36, you write:<br /><br /><b><i>"The 'for' shows the causal relationship: 'you are saved because you did all these works.'"</i></b> <br /><br />As I said before, the judgment is about more than justification. The kingdom that the justified inherit is a kingdom that's largely defined by rewards (Matthew 25:14-30). The passage I just cited comes right before the one you cited. I've given a few reasons why works would be emphasized in judgment passages, and all of those reasons are applicable to Matthew 25:31-46.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-13733162805684101472009-12-16T16:40:19.707-05:002009-12-16T16:40:19.707-05:00That's why we often see baptism and faith dist...<i>That's why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.).</i> <br /><br />Ah, but baptism (odd that you should bring up <i>that</i> example) is also equated with regeneration and entrance into the kingdom, so this is hardly an example amenable overall to your position:<br /><br /><b>Acts 2:38, 41</b> And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” . . . So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.<br /><br />The order is not: <br /><br />1) faith<br />2) forgiveness<br />3) indwelling Holy Spirit<br />4) baptism <br /><br />but rather, <br /><br />1) faith<br />2) baptism <br />3) forgiveness<br />4) indwelling Holy Spirit<br /><br />Because of the baptism, souls were added to the kingdom. They weren't already in the kingdom, and then decided to be baptized out of obedience. Therefore, the work of baptism directly ties into both justification and final salvation.<br /><br /><b>Galatians 3:26-27</b> for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.<br /><br /><b>Colossians 2:12</b> and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.<br /><br />Faith and baptism are virtually equivalent in their importance. One is "in" Jesus both through faith and through baptism. Both/and.<br /><br />Baptism is not a separate, optional work. It is part and parcel of the process. Insofar as it, too, is regarded as a "work" then here we have again the Catholic grace-faith-works (and efficacious sacraments) paradigm.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-37830039288551365722009-12-16T16:18:45.631-05:002009-12-16T16:18:45.631-05:00Your article includes John 5:26-29, so I don't...<i>Your article includes John 5:26-29, so I don't see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.</i><br /><br />Fair point. I love discussions of context. Protestants too often ignore context, but you don't, and I respect that and commend you for it. I have explained my criterion for inclusion in my article on final judgment and works: it depends on how exactly one decides to categorize; how one determines which is a directly eschatological passage or one having to do with judgment. Reasonable folks can differ on that, as there is a subjective element. Not every systematic theologian cuts off the passages they employ at the same exact point.<br /><br />But as I have been saying, a consideration also of the larger context of John 5 does nothing to harm the Catholic case. You wrote:<br /><br /><i>many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, . . . the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.</i><br /><br />Using John 5 as an example (since you brought it up), we see that this doesn't apply. You say 5:21-22 mention resurrection and judgment. Fine; indeed they do. But what they don't do is give the <i>criteria</i> for these judgments and who is resurrected. That has to come by reading on (further context). You want to highlight 5:24:<br /><br />". . . he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life."<br /><br />I have explained that this is a generalized statement: one could perhaps paraphrase it as "Christian believers have eternal life" or (to bring it down to a Sunday School nursery level): "all good Christians go to heaven." <br /><br />It doesn't follow from a general statement like this that no Christian can ever fall away (though Calvinism requires this, over against many biblical passages to the contrary), or that works have nothing to do with it. We need to look at the deeper meaning of "believe" (as I have already done).<br /><br />As we read on (the same discourse from Jesus) we get to 5:29:<br /><br />". . . those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."<br /><br />Now, you want to highlight 5:24 and de-emphasize 5:29. I can gladly consider <i>both</i> of them in the entire equation. It's once again the Catholic (Hebraic) "both/and" vs. the Protestant (and more Greek) "either/or".<br /><br />Scripture is asserting two truths:<br /><br />5:24 "he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life"<br /><br />5:29 "those who have done good, to the resurrection of life,"<br /><br />Faith and works. For us, the two passages are entirely compatible and in harmony with our Catholic theology: one is saved by grace through faith, in believing in Jesus, and this belief entails and inherently includes good works. <br /><br />But you guys can't do that, because you wrongly conclude that any presence of good works in the equation of both justification salvation itself is somehow "anti-faith" or antithetical to grace alone; and is Pelagianism. This doesn't follow.<br /><br />But because you believe this (the false, unbiblical premise), you have to explain 5:29 as merely differential rewards for the saved (who are saved by faith alone); whereas the actual TEXT does not teach that. It teaches a direct correlation between good works and eternal life. It explains 5:24 in greater depth; just as I noted earlier that Jesus Himself places works and faith in direct relationship:<br /><br /><b>John 14:12</b> Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do . . .Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79575508604270825112009-12-16T15:39:08.627-05:002009-12-16T15:39:08.627-05:00Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is th...<i>Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.</i><br /><br />I can easily flip that around, based on the biblical data I have been highlighting:<br /><br />"Part of the problem with the Protestant gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention works without mentioning faith (and especially not faith alone), but also the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that faith alone isn't involved."<br /><br />Since the Catholic believes in the triumvirate of GRACE--->faith--->works as the criteria for salvation, passages dealing with faith pose no problem. The more the merrier. We are saying that faith <i>alone</i> is the unbiblical doctrine, not faith. We're not against faith at all, but rather, a false definition of faith, that restricts and confines it in a way that the Bible doesn't do.<br /><br />But since your position is faith alone (in terms of salvation itself) then you have to explain away or rationalize all passages suggesting an important place of works in the equation, in a way that we're not required to do (given our position) with all the passages about faith that you produce.<br /><br />So you claimed, for example, that "The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification." I have now produced six, plain, clear passages that DO do just that. And that has to be explained from your paradigm. <br /><br />I'm sure you will attempt some sort of explanation for your own sake (if even just in your own mind), because if you fail to do so, you would be forced to give up Protestant soteriology. The stakes are high.<br /><br />But in any event, bringing out ten, twenty, fifty passages that mention faith does nothing against our position, because we don't reject faith as part of the whole thing. <br /><br />The problem for your side remains: how to interpret the centrality of works in the judgment / salvation passages like the six I dealt with in my last two postings, in a way that preserves the "faith alone" doctrine.<br /><br />I contend that it is impossible. To do so does violence to the Bible and what it teaches. We must base our teaching squarely on biblical theology and not the arbitrary, self-contradictory traditions of men (folks like Calvin), who eisegete Holy Scripture and substitute for biblical thought, their own traditions.<br /><br />Sometimes it's easy to confuse those traditions with biblical teaching itself. But by examining Holy Scripture more deeply and over time, I think anyone can eventually see that it supports the Catholic positions every time. <br /><br />That's why we continue to see folks who study the issues deeply moving from Protestantism to Catholicism (such as Francis Beckwith: the original subject of this post).Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45597126465303500272009-12-16T15:06:22.964-05:002009-12-16T15:06:22.964-05:002 Thessalonians 1:7-9 . . . when the Lord Jesus is...<b>2 Thessalonians 1:7-9</b> . . . when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance upon those who do not know God and upon those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They shall suffer the punishment of eternal destruction and exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,<br /><br />Note that simply believing the gospel and knowing God is not enough for salvation. One has to also "obey the gospel" (and that involves works).<br /><br /><b>Revelation 2:5</b> Remember then from what you have fallen, repent and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent.<br /><br />If we don't do the works, we can lose our salvation; therefore works have to do with salvation; they are not separated from that by abstracting them into a separate category of sanctification, that is always distinguished from justification. That ain't biblical teaching. That is the eisegesis and false premises of Melanchthon and Calvin and Zwingli.<br /><br /><b>Revelation 20:11-13</b> Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it; from his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, by what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead in them, and all were judged by what they had done.<br /><br />Same thing again. Obviously, St. John, St. Paul, and our Lord Jesus need to attend a good Calvinist or evangelical seminary and get up to speed on their soteriology. They don't get it. The passage <i>should</i> have been written something like the following:<br /><br />". . . and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to whether they had Faith Alone. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to whether they had Faith Alone."<br /><br />Perhaps we should get together a council and rewrite the Bible so that it doesn't have so many "Romish" errors throughout its pages . . . :-) The King James White version or sumpin' . . . :-)Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45654277842386932892009-12-16T14:53:58.099-05:002009-12-16T14:53:58.099-05:00Thanks for the continuing excellent discussion. Ju...Thanks for the continuing excellent discussion. Just one point:<br /><br /><i>the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), [be] vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification.</i><br /><br />This is classic Protestantism, of course: works are relegated to post-justification status, as part of a separate sanctification and the realm of differential rewards of those already saved. I used to believe the exact same thing, so I'm very familiar with it.<br /><br />The problem is that Scripture doesn't teach such a view. The disproofs are already in my paper, in many passages that directly connect or associate salvation with the works that one does: therefore, works are not unrelated to either justification or eschatological salvation, as you claim they are:<br /><br /><b>Matthew 25:34-36</b> (RSV) Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; <b>FOR</b> I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' <br /><br />The "for" shows the causal relationship: "you are saved because you did all these works." That's what the text actually asserts, before false Protestant presuppositions and eisegesis are applied to it in the effort to make sure works never have to do directly with salvation (no matter how much faith and grace is there with them, so that we're not talking about Pelagianism).<br /><br />If Protestantism were true, the Bible should have had a passage something like this (RPV):<br /><br />"But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Then He will also say to those on His left, "Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels; for you did not believe in Me with Faith Alone." These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous who believed with Faith Alone into eternal life."<br /><br />But alas, it doesn't read like that, does it?<br /><br /><b>John 5:28-29</b> . . . the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.<br /><br />A direct correlation: the ones who do good works are saved; the ones who do evil are damned.<br /><br /><b>Romans 2:6-8, 13</b> For he will render to every man according to his works: To those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. . . . For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.<br /><br />Again, works are directly tied to eternal life and justification; they are not portrayed as merely acts of gratefulness that will lead to differential rewards for he saved; no, the differential reward is either salvation or damnation. Paul totally agrees with Jesus.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-34903276375033262642009-12-16T06:04:08.428-05:002009-12-16T06:04:08.428-05:00Dave Armstrong writes:
"In other words, '...Dave Armstrong writes:<br /><br /><b><i>"In other words, 'believe' in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works)."</i></b> <br /><br />I agree that faith is obedience, but it can be obedience without being work in any relevant sense. That's why we're told that people can believe without working (Romans 4:5-6), that justifying belief occurs in the heart (Acts 15:7-11, Romans 10:10), that works demonstrate faith (James 2:14-26), etc. Different terms are used to refer to faith and works, because they're different concepts. They can have obedience in common without having some other things in common.<br /><br />A reference to faith can't be assumed to include outward action, much less a specific outward action like baptism. That's why we often see baptism and faith distinguished, for example (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8, etc.). The fact that faith is obedience wouldn't lead us to the conclusion that other forms of obedience can be included in references to faith.<br /><br />The term "faith" and its synonyms aren't all that are relevant here. When we read of a paralytic being lowered into a house, a man visiting a Jewish temple, a crucified man, or a man listening to the gospel being preached, we don't define what that person is doing solely by a term like "faith". Rather, we also take into account the evidence provided by the surrounding context. It would make no sense to conclude that a paralyzed man being lowered into a house or a man visiting a Jewish temple was being baptized simultaneously or that a man nailed to a cross or a man listening to Peter preach the gospel was giving money to the poor at the same time. We judge how these individuals were justified partially through the surrounding context, not just a reference to faith or some related term. Part of the problem with the Catholic gospel is that not only do so many of the relevant passages mention faith without mentioning works, but the surrounding context gives us further reason to believe that the relevant works aren't involved.<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not)"</i></b> <br /><br />How can a passage about resurrection life and never dying (John 11:25-26) not be directly relevant? Passages of a similar nature use other phrases that are likewise relevant to future judgment and salvation, such as "on the last day" in John 6:40. Your article includes John 5:26-29, so I don't see a problem with including verse 24 as well. Themes of resurrection and judgment are already being discussed in verses 21-22. Yet, your article only cites verses 26-29.<br /><br />Similarly, Romans 5:1-9 repeatedly brings up themes of hope for the future and deliverance from future wrath.<br /><br />And I want to remind the readers of something I said earlier. The coming judgment is primarily a judgment of works even from the perspective of justification through faith alone. The unregenerate are condemned by their works, and the regenerate are justified in order to do (Ephesians 2:10), vindicated by, and rewarded for their works. The emphasis on works in judgment passages doesn't tell us, though, whether works are a means of justification. The dispute isn't about whether works are relevant to the judgment, but rather the <i>type</i> of relevance they have.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85406438432042101782009-12-15T21:27:54.912-05:002009-12-15T21:27:54.912-05:00They are thematically related insofar as they are ...They are thematically related insofar as they are also soteriological, but my 50 passages had specifically to do with final judgment, God's wrath, and eschatological salvation. <br /><br />That came about because I was asked in debate with Matt Slick (the big cheese at CARM) what I would say if I got to heaven and God asked me why I should be let in. I replied that we had biblical data as to what God would actually say at such a time, and it was all about works, not faith alone at all. And I found that quite striking (after studying it in greater depth), though it never surprises me to find profound biblical support for Catholicism. I always do whenever I study the Bible.<br /><br />Romans 5:9 does mention God's wrath, but it is a generalized, proverbial-like statement (such as often found in, e.g., 1 John), rather than particularistic and eschatological, which is what I was talking about in my paper.<br /><br />John 11:25-26 is of the same nature, and moreover, if we look at it closely, we see that the Greek for "believe" is <i>pistuo</i>, which is considered the counterpart of "does not obey" (<i>apitheo</i>) in John 3:36). 1 Peter 2:7 also opposes the two same Greek words. In other words, "believe" in the biblical sense already includes within it the concept of obedience (i.e., works). Hence, "little Kittel" observes:<br /><br />"<i>pisteuo</i> as 'to obey.' Heb. 11 stresses that to believe is to obey, as in the OT. Paul in Rom. 1:8; 1 Th. 1:8 (cf. Rom. 15:18; 16:19) shows, too, that believing means obeying. He speaks about the obedience of faith in Rom. 1:5, and cf. 10:3; 2 Cor. 9:13."<br /><br />(p. 854)<br /><br />Jesus joins faith ("belief" / <i>pistuo</i>) and works together, too, when He states:<br /><br /><b>John 14:12</b> Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. <br /><br />So even if one grants that these passages have to do directly with judgment and eschatological salvation (as I do not), it is still the case that the "belief" mentioned in them is (through cross-referencing) seen to include obeying and works, and we're back to the Catholic organic relationship between the two, rather than the Protestant ultra-abstraction of the two into the justification and sanctification categories.<br /><br />"Faith alone" is tough to verify from Scripture once everything is taken into account and not just the garden-variety Protestant passages that are always utilized.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70587810937915596182009-12-15T21:17:08.517-05:002009-12-15T21:17:08.517-05:00Sin is evidence against salvation, but I think som...<i>Sin is evidence against salvation, but I think some people give it inordinate weight, while neglecting evidence pointing in the opposite direction, when they make judgments on matters like these.</i><br /><br />In this type of case I wasn't thinking so much about sin, but about knowledge. I have a difficult time understanding how a true believer (with a sola fide-like faith) could go on to accept the gospel of Rome.Carriehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04697072499214349759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25005054244408227872009-12-15T18:30:35.590-05:002009-12-15T18:30:35.590-05:00Dave Armstrong wrote:
"The point of my paper...Dave Armstrong wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"The point of my paper and question about it is not to stake out some 'works alone' position (which would, of course, be a Pelagianism that Catholics totally reject as heresy), but to note that it is rather striking that only works are mentioned in the judgment passages, and never faith alone (and faith at all only once out of 50)."</i></b> <br /><br />I realize that the Catholic view involves grace and faith as well, which is why I previously referred to faith rather than "a combination between faith and gracious works" in reference to Galatians 3:21-25, for example. The second paragraph in the post you're responding to was meant to be an explanation of the intention of the Biblical authors, not a response to Catholicism.<br /><br />I don't see how some of the passages I mentioned in my last post, such as John 11:25-26 and Romans 5:1-9, can be exempted from an examination of judgment passages. When people are assured of a future in Heaven, the resurrection of life, the avoidance of God's wrath in the future, etc. on the basis of faith, why wouldn't such passages be relevant to the subject you're addressing?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-10507267339236109452009-12-15T18:17:23.854-05:002009-12-15T18:17:23.854-05:00latitude wrote:
"If a man walked into your c...latitude wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"If a man walked into your church and stated that he in all sincerity 'beat his breast and said, 'God, have mercy on me, a sinner,’' would you accept that as a credible profession of faith?"</i></b> <br /><br />Only if your example carries with it the sort of assumptions that Jesus' example surely carried. It's doubtful that Jesus would have thought that the tax collector would be justified if he defined "God" as one of the Egyptian deities, for example. Jesus was speaking primarily to first-century Jews, after all, and was one Himself. Does the man in your example accept the other essentials of the faith, such as what Paul mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25208563184951305342009-12-15T18:09:27.448-05:002009-12-15T18:09:27.448-05:00Carrie,
I agree that what Francis Beckwith has do...Carrie,<br /><br />I agree that what Francis Beckwith has done is worse than what Peter did in some ways. (The reason why I say "in some ways" is because Peter did something worse in other ways. He fell from a higher position, for example. He was an apostle who had lived with Jesus, knew that he would be highly influential as an apostle, etc.) I made a distinction between Peter and Beckwith in the fourth-to-last paragraph of my original post.<br /><br />I think something people often underestimate is the significance of a person's background in Evangelicalism. Partly because of examples like David, Peter, the Corinthians, and the Galatians, I think there can be a high degree of sin in the life of a believer, even though that isn't the norm. Sin is evidence against salvation, but I think some people give it inordinate weight, while neglecting evidence pointing in the opposite direction, when they make judgments on matters like these. Just as we assign a lot of weight to the positive attributes in David's life prior to and after his times of sin, we ought to assign a lot of weight to a person's background in Evangelicalism if the person seems to have lived well in that context.<br /><br />You commented that "even if your comparison of Peter in Galatians to someone like Beckwith is legitimate, I would still expect the confusion to be temporary and a bit shallow". I agree that sin acquires more weight as evidence against a person's salvation the further the sin goes. We haven't been given any time limit at which we can draw a line, but I agree with the general principle you're referring to.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-26529959556808325202009-12-15T12:40:08.064-05:002009-12-15T12:40:08.064-05:00Steve wrote, "If a Mormon or Jehovah's Wi...Steve wrote, "If a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness were to utter those words, would that constitute a credible profession of faith?"<br /><br />Perhaps you should ask Jason. He is the one who said, "A person can throw himself entirely on the mercy of God, like the tax collector of Luke 18, without having a high level of knowledge about doctrines like justification through faith alone and imputed righteousness.” <br /><br />Perhaps he would say that JWs and Mormons don't have a high level of knowledge about doctrines like justification through faith alone and imputed righteousness.<br /><br />If a Jew were to state that he threw himself entirely on the mercy of God, would that constitute a credible profession of faith? Do you reject the tax collector of Luke 18 as an example of saving faith today?varietyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04197587758094541983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-44640261975014592762009-12-15T11:25:57.607-05:002009-12-15T11:25:57.607-05:00Hi Jason,
Thanks very much for your reply, and es...Hi Jason,<br /><br />Thanks very much for your reply, and especially for sticking directly to the issues. I think you have answered well from within your own paradigm, and it is interesting to learn how you answer the question I asked. I truly do appreciate it.<br /><br />I disagree, of course, but as I said, I didn't come here to debate. Let me conclude, if I may, by briefly clarifying that the Catholic position is not saying to ignore faith or grace (the content of your entire long second paragraph). Our position is that salvation is by grace alone, through faith, which is not alone, and includes works by its very nature. <br /><br />So all your warnings about "ignoring" faith are non sequiturs, as far as Catholicism is concerned, and a rather large straw man, if you are intending to target Catholic soteriology there.<br /><br />The point of my paper and question about it is not to stake out some "works alone" position (which would, of course, be a Pelagianism that Catholics totally reject as heresy), but to note that it is rather striking that only works are mentioned in the judgment passages, and never faith alone (and faith at all only once out of 50). In another paper I mentioned here I cite 50 passages from Paul that exhibit the threefold scenario of grace-faith-works.<br /><br />We also get accused of believing in "sola ecclesia" when in fact our position on authority is the three-legged stool of Scripture-Tradition-Church. It's simply Protestant either/or thinking applied to us.<br /><br />Thanks again, and I will record your complete reply in a post I'll make on the topic. You or anyone else is always welcome to comment on my site about anything.<br /><br />Merry Christmas to you and yours.Dave Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07771661758539438173noreply@blogger.com