Tuesday, September 16, 2008

Invincible ignorance

LONELYBOY SAID:

“Hi Steve ,I have been reading your blog for years now. I just created my blog today and wanted to ask you a question which is off topic, you mentioned before in your article about mother teresa that you wouldnt give much allowance to pope benedict xvi,raymond brown and karl rahner if they are saved unlike mother teresa , does that mean that it is nearly impossible for a RC clergy who is consistent with RC theology to be saved?, what about Eastern Orthodox priests?, also are all evangelicals who converted to Romanism and Eastern Orthodoxy lost ? Do you think there are elect RC priests even if they dont believe and embrace solafide?, I am from the Phillippines and just wanted to be clear about this since most people I talk to are Catholics.”

I don’t have precise answers to all these questions. I operate with a few basic principles:

1. To whom much is given, much is required.

2. There’s such a thing as saving faith. That has a certain doctrinal content.

To some extent saving faith person-variable.

3. There’s such a thing as damnable error.

4. No one is saved through invincible ignorance. Ignorance is not equivalent to saving faith.

5. There are degrees of culpability. Willful ignorance. Willful disbelief.

6. You don’t have to be a theologian to be saved.

7. In the course of church history, the elect are often found in situations where their theological and ecclesiastical options are pretty limited. God understands that. God put them there.

8. It’s best to play it safe. Leave yourself a margin of error. Make your best effort to know the truth.

How these principles cash out in any particular case is hard for us to say.

1. Most popes and priests are cradle Catholics. They grew up in Catholic countries or Catholic communities.

Social conditioning is not a very good reason to believe something. It’s a default belief. Are they Catholics by accident? What if they grew up in Mormon or Muslim or Marxist or Hindu or Buddhist countries or communities? Would they be devout Mormons, Muslims, Marxists, Hindus, or Buddhist instead?

Depending on your natural aptitude and opportunities, you have some responsibility to examine the competition. To believe what you do because the geographical lottery caused you to be born in a Catholic country or community isn’t much of a reason to be Catholic (or Protestant, for that matter).

It’s culpable for people with the means and opportunity to never question their social conditioning.

2. The situation with Eastern Orthodoxy is somewhat different. Protestant theology developed in conscious reaction to medieval Catholic theology. And modern Catholic theology has developed, in part, in conscious reaction to Protestant theology.

To some extent, modern Catholicism is a clear-eyed rejection of Protestant theology—although, ironically, modern Catholicism has been influenced by liberal Lutheran Bible criticism.

By contrast, Orthodoxy for the most part came of age before the Protestant Reformation. Its formative years antedate the Reformation. It’s undergone less internal development and reaction.

I don’t want to overstate that situation. Subsequent to the Reformation, Orthodoxy has had occasion to disown Protestant theology—and it’s done so.

On the other hand, the Greek Orthodox read the NT in the original, so, in that respect, they’re more culpable than Latin Fathers and Scholastic theologians who didn’t know any better.

3. As for evangelical converts, some of them converted because they were ignorant of the best that evangelical theology has to offer.

That’s not necessarily a mitigating circumstance because, in some cases, the converts are willfully ignorant of the best that evangelical theology has to offer.

Some of them were asking good questions. They got bad answers to good questions. In that case, I’d cut them some slack.

On the other hand, the deeper they delve into Catholicism, the more they should realize that Catholicism is giving them the wrong answers. It’s no solution. No alternative.

Catholicism is a cop-out for seekers who get tired of looking for answers. They subcontract their religious duties to a second party.

The same psychology can be at work with evangelical converts to Orthodoxy.

In addition, some converts are attracted to the aesthetic dimension of Orthodoxy. That attraction isn’t necessarily a bad thing, although they tend to compare the best of Orthodox aesthetics to the worst of Evangelical aesthetics, which isn’t fair to either tradition.

And, of course, we shouldn’t confuse beauty with truth. Many films and novels and paintings are very beautiful and, at the same time, false to reality.

Islamic architecture is very beautiful, in service to the false prophet of a false God.

I’d add that unless your a Puritan, nothing prevents Protestant worshipers from worshiping in a building in the style of Romanesque architecture or Gothic architecture or Byzantine architecture or listening to Vivaldi choruses or Russian Orthodox choruses.

10 comments:

  1. Steve wrote, "2. There’s such a thing as saving faith. That has a certain doctrinal content. To some extent saving faith person-variable."

    Does Scripture anywhere define a minimum of the doctrinal content of saving faith? Along the lines of the question LONELYBOY asked, Is sola fide an essential component of the doctrinal content of saving faith?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dear Redeemthetime,

    Your question is addressed to Steve, and Steve will probably understand and answer your question differently than I would. But if I may take a stab at answering your question:

    One is saved by Jesus Christ.

    One is not saved by believing in Sola Fide.

    However, this is not to minimize the immense importance of doctrine. Doctrine helps us to understand how to have a God-honoring, God-glorifying relationship with Himself that will result in our salvation. Sound doctrine includes sola fide.

    Pax.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On the other hand, the deeper they delve into Catholicism, the more they should realize that Catholicism is giving them the wrong answers. It’s no solution. No alternative.

    Wrong answers indeed:

    An Italian husband returned home early from work to find his wife in bed with their local priest.

    Following the shock discovery, the man stormed into the local bishop's office in Chioggia, near Venice, and demanded an explanation. Later police were called to calm him down.

    Details of the incident in Chioggia near Venice emerged on Sunday in Italian newspapers and the local bishop Angelo Daniel has now confirmed that the adulterous priest has been sent to another parish for "reeducation".

    The 53-year-old priest was described as a specialist on the Bible and had been a good friend of the couple.

    The husband, 39, and his wife, 37, have two children.

    Bishop Daniel added: "I have always respected the priest in question and I will continue to respect him. You cannot discount all the good a person has done in their life just because of one mistake."

    From: Italian man catches wife in bed with priest.

    Contrast this statement by Bishop Daniel with how the elders disciplined Pastor Ted Haggard.

    ReplyDelete
  4. REDEEMTHETIME SAID:

    “Does Scripture anywhere define a minimum of the doctrinal content of saving faith?”

    No. 1 John lays down some threshold conditions, but I wouldn’t assume that’s exhaustive.

    “Along the lines of the question LONELYBOY asked, Is sola fide an essential component of the doctrinal content of saving faith?”

    Well, Paul says that if you deny the scriptural doctrine of justification, you deny the gospel. So that comes pretty close, to say the least.

    However, I’d also distinguish between willful disbelief and a teachable spirit. The Philippian jailor didn’t know very much when he was saved, but he was willing to learn more.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Steve,

    "Well, Paul says that if you deny the scriptural doctrine of justification, you deny the gospel. So that comes pretty close, to say the least."

    There's also the problem of labels. Someone may deny the label "sola fide", while the actual content of their belief is basically the Reformed harmonization between Paul's statements and James'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is the biblical basis for understanding that to some extent the content of saving faith is person-variable? The reason I ask is because someone has suggested to me that the content of saving faith does not necessarily include an understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ because there are examples in Scripture of those who were justified by faith prior to being cognizant of those truths (e.g., many of the apostles). And I was wondering if it is possible to be justified today without an understanding of those truths (i.e., the cross and resurrection).

    ReplyDelete
  7. REDEEMTHETIME SAID:

    “What is the biblical basis for understanding that to some extent the content of saving faith is person-variable?”

    Well, for one thing, Jesus obviously holds the scribes and Pharisees and Sadducees to a higher standard than the ordinary Jewish layman. They knew more, so they were obligated to act accordingly. They were in a position to know better.

    “The reason I ask is because someone has suggested to me that the content of saving faith does not necessarily include an understanding of the death and resurrection of Christ because there are examples in Scripture of those who were justified by faith prior to being cognizant of those truths (e.g., many of the apostles).”

    In the nature of the case, the object of saving faith is pegged to stage of revelation and redemption we’re in. Revelation is progressive.

    A pre-Christian Jew wouldn’t be in a position to believe as much since there was not as much to believe.

    “And I was wondering if it is possible to be justified today without an understanding of those truths (i.e., the cross and resurrection).”

    No, because we stand on a different side of the cross than a pre-Christian Jew. We can’t turn the clock back. We live in the age of fulfillment, not the age of promise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve said,
    "They knew more, so they were obligated to act accordingly. They were in a position to know better."

    Not to be flippant at all, but in what way were they in such a position? Why were they so obligated? Why weren't the average Jews? To frame it in another way, why wouldn't the "ordinary Jewish layman" have had the Berean responsibility and thus obligation you are saying that the Scribes and Pharisees and the Saducees had?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jesus castigated the Sadducees and Pharisees for keeping the "average Jew" from the truth. That's the point of his lament over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:

    "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

    14["Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour widows' houses, and for a pretense you make long prayers; therefore you will receive greater condemnation.]

    15"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

    16"Woe to you, blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, that is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple is obligated.'

    17"You fools and blind men! Which is more important, the gold or the temple that sanctified the gold?

    18"And, 'Whoever swears by the altar, that is nothing, but whoever swears by the offering on it, he is obligated.'

    19"You blind men, which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the offering?

    20"Therefore, whoever swears by the altar, swears both by the altar and by everything on it.

    21"And whoever swears by the temple, swears both by the temple and by Him who dwells within it.

    22"And whoever swears by heaven, swears both by the throne of God and by Him who sits upon it.

    23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.

    24"You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!

    25"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside they are full of robbery and self-indulgence.

    26"You blind Pharisee, first clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, so that the outside of it may become clean also.

    27"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness.

    28"So you, too, outwardly appear righteous to men, but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness.

    29"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,

    30and say, 'If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'

    31"So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

    32"Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.

    33"You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

    34"Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city,

    35so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.

    36"Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.
    Lament over Jerusalem
    37"Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, the way a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were unwilling.

    38"Behold, your house is being left to you desolate!

    39"For I say to you, from now on you will not see Me until you say, 'BLESSED IS HE WHO COMES IN THE NAME OF THE LORD!'"

    ----

    Notice who gets the greater condemnation and why.

    Indeed, it's this same class that gets charged with what we might call the "unpardonable sin." Their knowledge of the Scriptures and the history of the interpretation of them was so great that they knew full well who Jesus was - yet they chose to apostatize, and they took the nation as a corporate body with them in the process.

    Remember, Matthew is also the one who records who told Herod about the sign:

    4Gathering together all the chief priests and scribes of the people, he inquired of them where the Messiah was to be born.

    5They said to him, "In Bethlehem of Judea; for this is what has been written by the prophet:
    6'AND YOU, BETHLEHEM, LAND OF JUDAH,
    ARE BY NO MEANS LEAST AMONG THE LEADERS OF JUDAH;
    FOR OUT OF YOU SHALL COME FORTH A RULER
    WHO WILL SHEPHERD MY PEOPLE ISRAEL.'"

    So, what's Matthew, among others things conveying here with respect to the Jewish leaders? Remember, Matthew begins his Gospel with the genealogy to tell us who Jesus is - the Messiah, the King for David's (eternal) Throne. Throughout Matthew's Gospel, Jesus is depicted in conflict with the Jewish leaders. Matthew is conveying two things in this text:

    1. Herod is the pretender, Jesus is the real King of Israel.

    2. The Jewish leaders had information all the way back to the time of Herod that the Messiah would come from Bethlehem.

    3. So, when we see them "locking horns" with Jesus, and knowing what they knew about Jesus and from the Scriptures themselves, they were inculpated moreso than the average Jew.

    Further, Scripture is also rather clear that our leaders have a greater responsibility, because "to whom much is given much is required." Why? Because frequently they are in a "better" position to know more than the "average Joe."

    A similar principle is the case with respect to the Jews and Gentiles according to Paul in Romans. The Jews had the Law and the Prophets - yet they were guilty of sin too. The Gentiles had neither and only the law of conscience, as it were, yet they were/are guilty too. Both are guilty, yet those who have the most direct information - namely "the Law and Prophets" stand in a position of greater condemnation.
    By extension, then we can say that the person who sits in church from their childhood to the present day and never believes is "more guilty" than the person who hears the Gospel just once, rejects it, and never believes. We can think of other examples that depict different levels of condemnation, but I think you get the idea.

    ReplyDelete
  10. So, Gene, you agree with the position that there was an OT and intertestamental Magisterium to which the average Jews were bound to go to receive authoritative interpretations of the Scriptures?

    ReplyDelete