Pages

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Splitting the difference

On the one hand, Francis Beckwith says:

"In fact, virtually every Christological heresy in the history of the church is the consequence of someone trying to split the difference."

http://firstthings.com/blogs/evangel/2009/10/a-question-for-professor-moore/#comment-162

On the other hand, he also says:

"It [Roman Catholicism] rejects as artificial bifurcations the 'dilemmas' that are the woof and warp of most Protestant theologies: God's sovereignty v. Man's autonomy, faith v. works, Scripture v. tradition, body v. soul, nature v. grace."

http://romereturn.blogspot.com/2009/10/me-and-sola-scriptura-my-reply-to-guy.html

Looks like Catholicism is trying to split the difference Scripture and tradition, nature and grace, sovereignty and freedom, &c. But isn't that like...you know...heretical?

3 comments:

  1. Nah, it depends on WHICH differences you split. And only the Magisterium knows for sure!

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm saying the same thing in both. "Split the difference" is an idiom that refers to dividing something rather taking the whole. So, it is not faith v. works. It's faith working through love. It's not grace v. nature. It's grace changing nature. It's not God v. man; it's God becoming man so that man may participate in the divine life. In the same way,

    As I say in my Wheaton notes (that I reproduced on the FT site): It seems to many Catholics that if there’s one central point in Scripture it is that nothing good is ever alone, not even God. For the Triune God is in fact three persons in eternal and loving fellowship with each other. God created Eve because man is not meant to be alone. In the incarnation Jesus of Nazareth is both God and man, with the latter not diminishing the former. In fact, virtually every Christological heresy in the history of the church is the consequence of someone trying to split the difference. For Arius, the God-man was not that much of a God. For the docetists he was not much of a man. The monophystists tried to merge both natures and thus ended up with neither.

    The Pelagians embraced the idea that nature can be redeemed without grace. The Gnostic Simon Magus taught that one can acquire redemption by grace without changing nature.

    This is why I say on my blog that Catholicism "rejects as artificial bifurcations the 'dilemmas' that are the woof and warp of most Protestant theologies." In other words, Catholicism refuses to split the difference. That's the point!

    There's a nice explanation by my friend Taylor Marshall on how this applies to the issue of justification. He writes:

    -------
    excerpts from The “zero-sum” Paradigm and the Catholic View of Salvation

    by Taylor Marshall

    When I was a Reformed Protestant, I viewed salvation as a “zero-sum” situation. This led to the question, “How much does God do and how much do I do in salvation?”

    Clearly it can’t be God does 50% and I do 50%. Then there was the Arminian position that came down to God does 99.9% and I do 0.1%. The Calvinist position rejects all this and states God does 100% and I do 0% – entirely monergistic.

    The Catholic position...is that the “zero-sum” paradigm is misleading. If you start with a scale ranging from zero to one hundred percent, you never get to the truth.

    The early Christological debates centered on this zero sum error: “Is Christ 50% divine and 50% human? – what about 100% divine and 0% human?” The Councils authoritatively declared that this is the wrong way of seeing things. Christ is 100% divine AND 100% human. The divine Logos *assumed* his human nature. There is no contradiction is saying that Christ is 100% God and 100% man because the model is one of “participation”.

    Paul (following Christ) presents salvation with the paradigm of participation (”…that they may be in me and I in them…”). Human salvation is 100% the work of God. Our ability to believe, repent, do good works, persevere, etc. come from the grace of God. Nothing is “of ourselves”. Yet this position does NOT entail monergism. 2 Peter says that we “participate” in the divine nature. We are not completely passive. Scripture NEVER speaks like that.

    ....
    So the right answer is that salvation is 100% divine and 100% human – the divine grace being prior to human faith and works. That’s the Catholic position and I would challenge you to read the New Testament with this Catholic paradigm in mind. I think that you will find that it sheds light on passages, brings about a cohesive whole, and clarifies those “difficult passages” that Protestants avoid or dismiss (e.g. James 2, Hebrews 6).
    -------

    You can read Taylor's entire post here: http://tinyurl.com/yfwd8m9

    Peace and blessings,
    Frank

    ReplyDelete
  3. Francis Beckwith, quoting Taylor Marshall, wrote:

    "So the right answer is that salvation is 100% divine and 100% human – the divine grace being prior to human faith and works. That’s the Catholic position and I would challenge you to read the New Testament with this Catholic paradigm in mind. I think that you will find that it sheds light on passages, brings about a cohesive whole, and clarifies those “difficult passages” that Protestants avoid or dismiss (e.g. James 2, Hebrews 6)."

    Works (including involvement in baptism and other sacraments) are 100% absent in the paradigm case of Abraham (Genesis 15:6) and 100% absent in the historical descriptions of how others were justified (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2-9, etc.). Works were present in Abraham's life, a point made in James 2, and they would have followed faith in cases like those in Mark 2, Luke 7, etc. But justification occurs at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism or any other work. Not only would it be a less natural interpretation to dismiss these passages as exceptions to a rule, but some of these passages are presented in contexts that are about what's normative, not what's exceptional. People like Abraham, the tax collector of Luke 18, Cornelius, and the Galatians are treated as if the means by which they received justification was normative. Every one of them received justification through faith alone, without the presence of baptism or any other work.

    Paul often points back to how people were initially justified (Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). The Judaizers couldn't argue that while justification is initially attained through faith alone, works could be added as means of maintaining or increasing justification later. It seems that Paul viewed the initial means of attaining justification as evidence that works couldn't be added to the process, as a means of justification, afterward.

    But let's set that point aside for the moment. Assume, for the sake of argument, that works might become a means of maintaining or increasing justification after justification is received. The fact would remain that scripture contradicts Roman Catholic soteriology on the issue of how justification is initially attained. Passages like Genesis 15 and Acts 10 don't reflect a Catholic view. They reflect an Evangelical view.

    Yes, Catholicism teaches that "the divine grace [is] prior to human faith and works", as Taylor Marshall puts it. But scripture teaches that justification occurs, normatively, prior to baptism and other works, which is inconsistent with Catholic teaching. To use Marshall's examples, scripture does suggest that Jesus is both God and man and that Peter was both empowered by God to walk on water and walked by his own power. Thus, we have to account for both. But when baptism and other works are absent from passages of scripture like the ones discussed above, there are no works to account for. You don't need an explanation that includes both faith and works. To the contrary, an explanation that includes works is wrong. It includes too much. It's more reasonable to read passages like Hebrews 6 and James 2 as Evangelicals do than it is to include works in passages like the ones I've discussed above or to dismiss those passages as exceptions to a rule.

    ReplyDelete