Saturday, August 26, 2017

The prince and the pauper

Recently I had an impromptu debate on Facebook regarding the Reformed doctrine of imputation. My exchange alludes to this post as a frame of reference:


This is just a rehash of the hackneyed objection that sole fide is a legal fiction. Is there anything new to say on that issue? What's the point of repeating the stock arguments and counterarguments?

In my experience, debating particular doctrines is never constructive because the participants don't agree on the rules of evidence. For Protestants, it's an essentially exegetical debate over what biblical revelation teaches, using the grammatico-historical method. BTW, contemporary Catholic Bible scholars use the same hermeneutical methodology.

For Catholic apologists, by contrast, it's filtered through selective appeals to the church fathers, the Magisterium, and a priori notions of what is fitting. 

The debate over particular doctrines never gets anywhere because that's a downstream discussion where constructive dialogue is only possible if there's common ground on the rules of evidence, which lies upstream.

i) In my experience, many Catholics don't bother to read Bible commentaries (or articles) by contemporary Catholic Bible scholars. If they did, they could avoid the false dichotomy between Catholic and Protestant hermeneutics. There's no essential difference between the way Joseph Fitzmyer, Raymond Brown, Luke Timothy Johnson, John Meier, John Collins et al. exegete Scripture and their Protestant counterparts. The main difference is that Catholic scholars are typically liberal, whereas Protestant scholars range along a liberal/conservative continuum. 

ii) I don't have to affirm the general perspicuity of Scripture to say that Scripture is clear on particular issues. For one thing, on certain doctrines, the teaching of Scripture is redundant, so even if a particular word or sentence is ambiguous, it doesn't hang on that.

iii) BTW, Mommy and Daddy didn't teach me that Scripture is perspicuous. My parents didn't have a definitive role in the hermeneutical process in the first place. It would behoove you to avoid stereotyping people if you know nothing about their personal background.

iv) Catholic apologists labor under the illusion that they can achieve the certainty denied to Protestants. But Catholic epistemology simply pushes the same issues back a step. To establish the authority of the Magisterium, you must interpret texts apart from the authority of the Magisterium. If you don't have some confidence in your ability to interpret the church fathers, church councils, &c., then your skepticism disqualifies you from ever making a case for the Magisterium.

iv) I don't fret over inconclusiveness. I accept the epistemic situation that God has put us in. I don't invent a makeweight.

In my experience, modern Catholic Bible scholars as well as modern Catholic church historians compartmentalize their faith from their scholarship. Their scholarship yields one set of conclusions, but they partition that off from their faith. They continue to profess Catholicism despite the results of their scholarship. That's analogous to liberal Protestants.

i) This goes to a fundamental difference in theological method, where you appeal to your philosophical intuitions to veto exegesis. That makes an element of sense if one rejects the revelatory status of Scripture. But it's improper to say I preemptively discount an interpretation that conflicts with my philosophical intuitions even if the best exegetical arguments support that interpretation.

ii) I don't think imputation presumes a theologically voluntaristic view of divine sovereignty, if that's what you're angling at. 

iii) I gave hypothetical illustrations in which agent A acts on behalf of and in place of agent B, so that agent B acquires an ascribed status by virtue of what was done for him that's functionally equivalent to an achieved status. That's not unique to Protestant/Reformed theology. That's a commonplace in social interactions. Although my examples were hypothetical, they have many real-world counterparts. So even at the level of philosophical intuitions, there's nothing counterintuitive about it. 

iv) Another potential problem is that many Catholics frame these issues in terms of Thomistic metaphysics. At best, the objections are only cogent if one grants all the paraphernalia of Thomistic metaphysics. 

Notice that I cast the issue, in part, by reference to standard sociological categories (achieved/ascribed status) rather than metaphysical categories.

"1) I don't think scripture allows for a multitude of different metaphysical positions, for one thing. I think it constrains us when we do our exegesis."

What constrains exegesis? Metaphysical positions that Scripture rules out, or metaphysical positions (criteria) we bring to Scripture, apart from Scripture?

"And you appear to be saying that I'm using philosophy to veto your exegesis"

That's manifestly the case.

"And you appear to be saying that I'm using philosophy to veto your exegesis when I'm simply saying that you're exegesis in my exegesis both involve different philosophical frameworks that we should not ignore."

And what distinctive philosophical framework do you think is driving my distinctive interpretation? 

"If your framework is conjoined to your exegesis and your framework is wrong then your exegesis is wrong, too. The same applies to mine."

You haven't identified what framework I've conjoined to my exegesis. You've also indicated that there's something uniquely Protestant about my approach, but that's not the case. For instance, as Eleonore Stump has said in a different context:

"If one passage can be set aside because it strikes us as incompatible with our moral intuitions, then others may have to be treated in the same way. But then our moral intuitions will be the standard by which the texts are judged, and the texts can’t function as divine revelation is meant to function, as a standard by which human beings can measure and correct human understanding, human standards, and human behavior." "The Problem of Evil and the History of Peoples: Think Amalek." M. Bergmann, Michael J. Murray, and M.C. Rea., eds. Divine Evil? The Moral Character of the God of Abraham (Oxford University Press 2011), 181.

The same holds true for setting aside an interpretation because it strikes you as incompatible with your philosophical intuitions–even if that interpretation has the best of the exegetical arguments.

Your position reminds me of my many debates with unitarian philosopher Dale Tuggy. His metaphysical criteria preemptively discount the possibility that Scripture teaches the deity of Christ. 

"If you don't think it presumes that, I'd like to hear an explanation as to what view of divine sovereignty you feel it does involve."

You seem to think the Reformed doctrine of imputation presumes a voluntaristic or Cartesian notion of divine omnipotence. But that's generated by what happens when you plug imputation into your (Thomistic?) metaphysical scheme. I'm not operating with your metaphysical framework (whatever that is). It's up to you, not me, to explicate why you think imputation generates that consequence, inasmuch as that's based on your understanding rather than mine.

"Do you hold the son's friend is truly being treated as the son in an interchangeable way that isn't based on ontology? The father has to realize he is still just a friend and isn't conflating. Obviously the privilege wasn't so exclusive in the first place."

He receives a benefit which the father would normally reserve for his own son. He's not treated "as" the son but "as if" he's the son. No, it's not based on ontology. Sure, he's still just a friend and not the son. That's the point. In the nature of the case, vicarity isn't identity. Not ontological identity, but functional equivalence. 

"As for adoption, I view it ontologically. It certainly is when Scripture talks about us as sons and relates it to our being born again - Christ gets called only-begotten not because that terminology od being begotten can never be applied to us, but because he is so eternally and we are so temporally, hence the semantic distinction. But I'm not a child of God for primarily legal reasons - the designation reflects the ontological reality and does so necessarily (and it seems to me that your metaphysics cannot allow for that since the morally innocent Christ is legally guilty on the cross). In the case of human adoption I entirely view the process of the state calling someone an adopted child as secondary or contingent."

i) To begin with, you're inventing a generic concept by merging different Bible writers like Paul and John, as if their positions are interchangeable or reducible to a common denominator. But each one has his own paradigm. John prefers a reproductive metaphor while Paul prefers an adoptive metaphor. One involves an analogy with biological sonship while the other involves an analogy with adoptive sonship, which, by definition, is not biological. You're blurring an essential distinction between the two.

ii) BTW, while I affirm the eternal sonship of Christ, I reject eternal generation. But that's an argument for another day. 

"Similarly, if the state pronounces someone guilty or innocent it needs to align with "the truth of the matter" about the person, that is to say the MORAL innocence or guilt. It's absolutely counterintuitive for us to say that a court could declare someone legally innocent who is morally guilty or declare someone legally guilty who is morally innocent. Moral guilt and innocence is the thing that most people give a damn about and they expect any legal determination to necessarily reflect it or it is a worthless lie."

It's that attitude which renders Catholics impervious to the Gospel. Paul in particular stresses the prima facie dilemma of how God can justly forgive sinners. A just God is supposed to punish sinners.

Sinners are guilty before God. So how can they be acquitted? How can a just God save anyone if everyone is sinful? That's the conundrum. Paul resolves that dilemma by appeal to vicarious atonement and penal substitution. 

"And you might think that that means that the thing I said is counterintuitive (and it certainly is in every other occurrence)"

The vicarious principle is common in human experience. 

"so that their new legal status is a direct reflection of their ontological, moral status."

Even making allowance for sanctification, they remain sinners.

"You want me to hold that he legally declares ungodly men righteous and sure, is simultaneously morally conforming them to that, but I see that as taking the declaration itself in a rather literal and univocal way."

No, I'm taking that in a substitutionary way.

"And I think the twofold distinction between legal and ontological/moral in the Protestant paradigm creates problems for knowing what specific verses are talking about, justification or sanctification."

Paul repeatedly and emphatically denies that one can be justified by works (or works of the law). In his scheme, justification and works are antithetical principles. He's the one who "radically distinguishes" the two.

"As for adoption, I view it ontologically."

My comparison was more specific. I used adoption to illustrate the distinction between achieved status and ascribed status. A king can adopt a peasant. That instantly elevates the peasant's social standing. He becomes the crown prince and heir apparent not on account of anything he did, but on account of something done for him. It's as if he was the conqueror who founded the kingdom by his military exploits. For the conqueror, that's achieved status. Yet the adoptive son enjoys the equivalent status despite having done nothing. 

In fact, that's true for biological sonship. You are born into a social status. You may inherit the family fortune. You did nothing to earn it.

"For me the issue isn't whether you earned it or not. The issue is whether it is an ontological reality or if it is merely something nominally describing you. As in to me the issue isn't how my brown desk got brown; the issue is that it is completely meaningless to give it the 'status' of being brown or participating in brown-ness unless you are talking about its real participation in that quality. I don't divide the universe into, say, legal brownness vs real brownness."

You're recasting the issue in your preferred metaphysical categories. That's your prerogative, but I don't grant your conceptual scheme as determinative. Moreover, I don't regard justification as analogous to color predications. 

"With regards to the adoptive son focusing on how he got adopted or on questions of who meriting that are entirely besides the point. The Sixth Session of Trent makes it clear that we don't earn our justified status in the first place."

To my knowledge, traditional Catholic theology bifurcates justification into first justification without works and second justification involving congruently meritorious works.

"The issue is whether or not that status is merely reflective on an ontological reality or if it is something else altogether."

You keep insisting that justification must conform to your strictures, but that's imposing your preconception on Pauline categories. In Pauline theology, God justifies sinners. They are not "ontologically" righteous. They are the opposite of "ontologically" righteous. 

"Would you say that the Crown Prince did the military exploits 'legally'?"

I'm not using that framework. The crown prince didn't perform the military exploits at all. Rather, he's the beneficiary, as if those were his personal attainments. 

Your approach reminds me of methodological atheism. Even if divine agency is the correct explanation for a particular phenomenon, the methodological atheist discounts that explanation in advance. By the same token, your approach disallows imputation even if it turns out that in fact this is what Paul really means. You have a screen in place that filters out certain interpretations even if they happen to be correct. Is there any kind of evidence you'd allow to count against your interpretive grid, or is that unfalsifiable?

43 comments:

  1. Steve, I was skimming through, and I noticed when you said this:

    ii) BTW, while I affirm the eternal sonship of Christ, I reject eternal generation. But that's an argument for another day.

    What I was wondering is, would you take the last clause of John 17:24 to be indicative of this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The primary argument for eternal sonship is that in the NT, the sonship of Christ is often treated as a divine title or evidence of deity. But in that event it must an essential property rather than an economic property, and thus eternal.

      Delete
    2. Steve,

      Well, I guess the fix for that would be to not make it out to be a divine title then, huh? :P I like that you're consistent: some people want it to be accidental, and yet somehow also essential at the same time. In the same way, some act like Jesus's authority is both essential and accidental at the same time --- whichever suits the point that they want to make!

      Delete
  2. Steve's interlocutor wrote: You want me to hold that he legally declares ungodly men righteous and sure, is simultaneously morally conforming them to that, but I see that as taking the declaration itself in a rather literal and univocal way.".

    Steve wrote: In Pauline theology, God justifies sinners. They are not "ontologically" righteous. They are the opposite of "ontologically" righteous. "

    It's almost as if the Catholic isn't aware of the Biblical basis for the Protestant understanding that God justifies sinners and our exegesis of passages like Rom. 4:5.

    And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,- Rom. 4:5

    Also, the Catholic seems to be ignorant that Protestants believe salvation does include an ontological transformation in sanctification. Some reformed folk are even willing to grant an ontological change in regeneration prior to the process of santification. We just deny that that transformation or the good works done on account of that transformation is the basis of our justification (which the perfect work of Christ alone).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In fact, the counter-intuitiveness some Catholics see in Protestant theology might be something Paul was aware of regarding his theology. For example, some scholars see Paul making his statement in Rom. 4:5 as being in conscious counter-intuitive contrast to Proverbs 17:15 and 24:24. Also, Paul seems to be aware that his doctrine of justification could be mistaken and had been abused to teach good works aren't necessary. Something Catholic justification can't be mistaken of.

      What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?- Rom. 6:1

      What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!- Rom. 6:15

      Though, in practice Catholic sacramentology has been abused in that way. Think of how easily Catholics will use the sacraments for "Easy-Forgivenessism" (to coin a term [grin]).

      All that's in addition to Steve's point that Paul repeatedly and in multiple books contrasts works and the law with grace and faith. Explicitly saying that we aren't justified by works or obedience to the law. If Catholics want to say that Paul was referring to strict merit and not grace empowered good works, where is that in Paul's theology. Meaning, that Paul wasn't opposing justification by grace empowered works when he referred to "works", but opposing justification by self-empowered works. And that salvation by "grace" and "faith" was understood to included works which were to be the basis of our justification.

      On the contrary Paul says that Christians are saved by grace through faith....not by works so that no one can boast. It is then AFTER he affirms our salvation (in the sense of justification) that he introduces the necessity of works in the next verse (i.e. in sanctification).

      8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God,
      9 not a result of worksa, so that no one may boast.
      10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.- Eph. 2:8-10

      Delete
    2. Catholics sometimes know theology to the detriment of knowing Scripture. Sometimes they don't actually know how pervasive Paul's rejection of works are for justification is in his writings. Here's a sample:

      he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,- Titus 3:5

      who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began,- 2 Tim. 1:9

      not a result of works, so that no one may boast.- Eph. 2:9

      yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.- Gal. 2:16

      Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?- Gal. 3:2

      Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith--- - Gal. 3:5

      For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them."- Gal. 3:10

      4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due.
      5 And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness,
      6 just as David also speaks of the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works:- Rom. 4:4-6

      though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad---in order that God's purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls--- - Rom. 9:11

      31 but that Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law.
      32 Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone,- Rom. 9:31-32

      But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.- Rom. 11:6

      Delete
  3. "They are not "ontologically" righteous. They are the opposite of "ontologically" righteous."

    Most certainly they are, as St. Paul teaches himself in Titus 3:4-7: "4 But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, 5 he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, 6 whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, 7 so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

    Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification.

    This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches. It is also consistent with his teaching in Romans 4:3-5. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. This faith was something that Abraham possessed within himself, i.e. God counted his ontological state as his righteousness. There is nothing about imputation of alien righteousness of Christ in Romans 4:3-5, it is a Reformed eisegesis.

    Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches that justification is a process. In 1 John 1:9 we learn that me must confess our sins as a condition to be forgiven. That proves that forigveness of sins occurs not in a single moment when we "accept Christ", but is continuous as we repent of subsequent sins and confess them - it is a process which is conditional.

    There is not a single passage of Scripture which explicitly says that obedience/righteousness/perfect life of Jesus Christ is imputed to a believer.

    "iv) I don't fret over inconclusiveness. I accept the epistemic situation that God has put us in. I don't invent a makeweight."

    It is interesting in a context of how Reformed presuppositionalists and Calvinists criticize evidentialists for "reducing Christian faith to probability" (an example is James White's constant criticism of William Lane Craig on these basis). But if there is really no infallible authority, than Christian faith is indeed reduced to probability - everything, including Trinity and Deity of Christ, are merely "more probable interpretation of Scripture", and the truthfulness of Christianity is merely "more probable" than Christianity being false.

    "But Catholic epistemology simply pushes the same issues back a step. To establish the authority of the Magisterium, you must interpret texts apart from the authority of the Magisterium. If you don't have some confidence in your ability to interpret the church fathers, church councils, &c., then your skepticism disqualifies you from ever making a case for the Magisterium."

    An atheist will say you push the problem on step back regarding authority of the Bible. It is based on your private judgment and you could be wrong. Therefore, if I cannot have certainty about the authority of the Magisterium, you cannot have certainty regarding inspiration of the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Here St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer done by the Holy Spirit) is how God justifies the sinner. This means that justification involves an ontological change within the believer, not merely a legal declaration. This also refutes the Protestant claim that sanctification is separated from justification and happens after it - to the contrary, in Titus 3:4-7 St. Paul says that sanctification is the basis for justification."

    i) Your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace.

    ii) And even if there's a chronological sequence, that's entirely consistent with Calvinism: justification is contingent on faith while faith is contingent on regeneration.

    "This is also why Paul says in Romans 6:16 that obedience leads to righteousness - exactly as the Catholic Church teaches."

    To the contrary, the Catholic church teaches infant baptismal justification. But the justification of infants is hardly contingent on their prior obedience.

    "It is also consistent with his teaching in Romans 4:3-5. Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. This faith was something that Abraham possessed within himself, i.e. God counted his ontological state as his righteousness."

    You're equivocating. Paul doesn't equate faith with righteousness; indeed, he distinguishes them. Righteousness is "credited" to Abraham by virtue of faith, *as if* faith is righteousness. Paul is speaking in shorthand. Faith in what? Faith in Christ. The merit of Christ's vicarious atonement is credited to the believer (Rom 3:21-26; 5:6-11).

    "Moreover, Scripture clearly teaches that justification is a process. In 1 John 1:9 we learn that me must confess our sins as a condition to be forgiven. That proves that forigveness of sins occurs not in a single moment when we 'accept Christ', but is continuous as we repent of subsequent sins and confess them - it is a process which is conditional."

    You fail to distinguish between the atonement and the application of the atonement.

    "There is not a single passage of Scripture which explicitly says that obedience/righteousness/perfect life of Jesus Christ is imputed to a believer."

    You're ignoring the elephant in the room: vicarious atonement.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is interesting in a context of how Reformed presuppositionalists and Calvinists criticize evidentialists for 'reducing Christian faith to probability' (an example is James White's constant criticism of William Lane Craig on these basis)."

    i) James White is not my standard of comparison.

    ii) There is, moreover, a difference between knowing the truth and proving the truth. *Arguments* may be probable.

    "But if there is really no infallible authority, than Christian faith is indeed reduced to probability - everything, including Trinity and Deity of Christ, are merely 'more probable interpretation of Scripture', and the truthfulness of Christianity is merely "more probable" than Christianity being false."

    i) God can and generally does foster saving faith by putting the elect in churches where they are indoctrinated in the true Gospel. The fact that arguments may be probable doesn't mean the providential process of inculcating Christian faith is probable. A reliable belief-forming process can produce true, warranted beliefs.

    ii) Moreover, unless you think God punishes Christians for innocent mistakes, unless you think God punishes Christians for holding mistaken beliefs through no fault of their own, because they had to rely on their individual aptitude and the available evidence, there's nothing scandalous about the consequence you derive.

    "An atheist will say you push the problem on step back regarding authority of the Bible. It is based on your private judgment and you could be wrong."

    No, an atheist won't say that. Rather, it's Catholic apologists who are hung-up on "private judgment".

    Finally, I warned you before that if you continue to recycle your stale objections, even though I've taken time to carefully respond to your objections, that you will be banned. This is your final warning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "i) Your conclusion only follows if the relationship between v6 and v7 is chronological, where justification is the effect of spiritual renewal. But more likely Paul is saying that inheriting eternal life is the combined effect of spiritual renewal and justification by grace."

    It is more than just chronological relationship. St. Paul says we are saved by "washing of regeneration". But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification and is a result of it, it occurs in someone who is already saved. But St. Paul says that regeneration is *means*, not *results* of salvation, which is completely incompatible with the Reformed doctrine of justification.

    "To the contrary, the Catholic church teaches infant baptismal justification. But the justification of infants is hardly contingent on their prior obedience."

    Initial justification - yes. Post-baptismal justification is in fact based on obediance. Furthermore, you have not explained why St. Paul teaches that obediance leads to righteousness, while in reformed theology righteousness comes from imputation of Christ's righteousness, obediance (sanctification) being only the result of justification. That goes against Romans 6:16.

    "You're equivocating. Paul doesn't equate faith with righteousness; indeed, he distinguishes them."

    St. Paul says that Abraham's faith was counted to him as righteousness. God looked at Abraham, saw his faith, and credited it to him as righteouness - thus, God did this on the basis of something that was ontologically within Abraham (faith), and thus Abraham was ontologically and objectively pleasing to God. There is nothing about extra nos imputation here.

    "Paul is speaking in shorthand. Faith in what? Faith in Christ. The merit of Christ's vicarious atonement is credited to the believer"

    Its not Paul speaking shorthand, but rather Reformed eisegesis. Nowhere does St. Paul say that perfect record of Christ's obediance is imputed to the believer as his righteousness. He says that faith is credited to a believer us as righteousness, which means that justification is based on something within the believer - his ontological state.

    "You fail to distinguish between the atonement and the application of the atonement."

    To the contrary, I distinguish between the two, which is one of many reasons why I attend the Mass - it is application of the atonement to the believer which as to be done constantly through time. As 1 John 1:9 teaches, forgiveness of sins happens continuously as we confess our sins and this confession of our sins is a necessary condition for forgiveness of sins. If one-time forensic justification and OSAS were true, 1 John 1:9 with future confession of sins as condition of their forgiveness makes no sense, because all of the sins were already forgiven in the past.

    "You're ignoring the elephant in the room: vicarious atonement."

    Penal substitution is not taught explicitly in Scripture either. And even if it were, it is a long way from proving that Christ was punished on the Cross to proving that his perfect record of righteousness is imputed to the believer. Not a single Scriptural verse says this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It is more than just chronological relationship"

      Actually, I'd say it's a teleological relationship rather than a chronological relationship.

      "But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification"

      I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order.

      "Furthermore, you have not explained why St. Paul teaches that obediance leads to righteousness, while in reformed theology righteousness comes from imputation of Christ's righteousness, obediance (sanctification) being only the result of justification. That goes against Romans 6:16."

      i) You're assuming that Paul always uses the "righteous" vocabulary the same way, but that varies according to context. In Rom 6:16, I think "righteousness" denotes eschatological vindication rather than vicarious righteousness.

      ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation.

      Your next paraphrase is simply a repetition of your original assertion, which I critiqued.

      "Nowhere does St. Paul say that perfect record of Christ's obediance is imputed to the believer as his righteousness."

      Well, I didn't frame my position in those terms, so you're shadowboxing with someone else.

      Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition).

      "Penal substitution is not taught explicitly in Scripture either."

      Even if true, that's an arbitrary demand. Logical implication is sufficient.

      Delete
    2. "I have no idea where you came up with that. In Reformed theology, justification is a consequence of faith while faith is a consequence of regeneration. So you've got the causal sequence out of order."

      By regeneration I mean change within the believer which includes good works and direction of his life towards God. In Reformed system good works are merely fruits and results of justification, but are never part or reason for it. As Sproul, for example, explained in "Faith Alone: The Evangelical Doctrine of Justification", Reformed view is "faith => justification + works". But St. Paul says that washing of regeneration (i.e. internal change within the believer) is a *basis* for justification, not its result. In Reformed system nobody can be "saved by washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit", because ontological state of a person (including internal change and good works) can never be basis for salvation. In other words, St. Paul says in Titus 3:4-7 that ontological state of a person, not merely legal declaration, is basis for justification.

      "ii) I don't know where you get the idea that in Reformed theology, sanctification is the result of justification. Rather, sanctification is an outgrowth of regeneration. Justification is categorically different from regeneration or sanctification in Reformed theology. Justification is an ascribed status whereas sanctification is a process of moral and spiritual transformation."

      I'm not sure what you object to, you essentially reworded what I said and which is standard Reformed view. In a Reformed view a person who is justified by legal declaration (which changes only legal status of a person, not his ontological state), then by God's grace produces fruits of that in form of sanctification which includes good works (but these sanctification, including good works, is never basis for justification). This is the view which Council of Trent's Canon 24 of the Decree of Justification righly condemned:

      24. If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

      R.C. Sproul admits in his aforemenetioned book, that Catholic view of the Reformed doctrine of justification expressed in this canon is indeed correct. As I demonstrated, Catholic view (justification on the basis of ontological state of a person) is compatibly with Titus 3:4-7, Protestant (justification as a legal declaration) is not.

      "i) You're assuming that Paul always uses the "righteous" vocabulary the same way, but that varies according to context. In Rom 6:16, I think "righteousness" denotes eschatological vindication rather than vicarious righteousness."

      I think you are wrong, because in Romans 6:16 St. Paul contrasts sin which leads to death (i.e. damnation) with obediance which leads to righteousness (a state in which one is saved). His contrast between the states of salvation and damnation clearly implies that he speaks about righteousness in soteriological terms. It is also consistent with his teaching in Romans 2:5-8 that salvation or damnation will be determined by one's obediance and works, "according to my Gospel" (Romans 2:16).

      Delete
    3. "Well, I didn't frame my position in those terms, so you're shadowboxing with someone else."

      If he does not say it, I have no basis of believing in imputation of righteousness, especially since Romans 4:3-5 is a standard Protestant prooftexts allegedly proving the doctrine of imputation.

      "Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition)."

      I never said that, you misunderstood my objection. In Reformed view justification can never be lost and all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification. But if confession of sins is a condition for forgiveness (as 1 John 1:9 teaches), that means:
      1) Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process.
      2) If we stop confessing our sins, they will not be forgiven (since 1 John 1:9 sets confession of sins and repentance as condition for forgiveness). Thus, justification and salvation are conditional and can be lost by one's failure to confess and repent.

      "Even if true, that's an arbitrary demand. Logical implication is sufficient."

      It is rather ironic in light of Protestant demands of explicit prooftexts for Marian dogmas, logical implications of which are present in Scripture (like Mary's perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34). But logical implication must be demonstrated from the text, not from presuppositions which Protestants carry into texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21.

      Delete
    4. "If he does not say it, I have no basis of believing in imputation of righteousness…"

      Why should I care what you believe? What's that to me? You need to drop the egotistical habit of making yourself the standard of comparison for anyone besides yourself.

      "…especially since Romans 4:3-5 is a standard Protestant prooftexts allegedly proving the doctrine of imputation."

      I already addressed that.

"Your next paragraph illogically assumes that "one-time forensic justification" must be unconditional (i.e. irrespective of contrition)."

"In Reformed view justification can never be lost and all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification."

      What makes you think that in Reformed theology, all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification?
      
"1) Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process."

      That's a repetition of your failure to distinguish justification from the application thereof.
      
"2) If we stop confessing our sins, they will not be forgiven (since 1 John 1:9 sets confession of sins and repentance as condition for forgiveness). Thus, justification and salvation are conditional and can be lost by one's failure to confess and repent."

      You're confusing conditionality with uncertainty. That only follows if the condition may not be met. But in the case of the elect, God ensures the satisfaction of the condition. 


"It is rather ironic in light of Protestant demands of explicit prooftexts for Marian dogmas, logical implications of which are present in Scripture (like Mary's perpetual virginity in Luke 1:34)."

      You have an obnoxious habit of attacking things I never said. Don't threadjack my posts to attack things that were never stated in my posts. Don't use my posts as a platform to assail what other people allegedly say. Don't insinuate that my posts are inconsistent based on something I never said.

      I, for one, never said we need "explicit" prooftexts for Marian dogmas.

      How does Lk 1:34 entail the perpetual virginity of Mary? Not to mention in partu virginity.

      "But logical implication must be demonstrated from the text, not from presuppositions which Protestants carry into texts like 2 Corinthians 5:21."

      You're just asserting that that's a presupposition which Protestants bring to 2 Cor 5:21 rather than an implication of 2 Cor 5:21.

      Delete
    5. Comparing and contrasting justification and damnation in Rom 6:16 proves my point, because damnation is the eschatological counterpart to eschatological vindication. Both refer to the final judgment.

      Delete
    6. "In Reformed view justification…all sins are forgiven in the moment of justification".

      Really?

      "God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified" (WCF 11:5).

      "Future sins are not forgiven in the moment when we are justified. We have to continuously confess them and repent in order to be forgiven. Thus, justification is a life-long process."

      i) If 1 Jn 1:9 is inconsistent with justification as a permanent, unrepeatable, once-for-all-time status, the contradiction wouldn't originate in Reformed theology. Rather, this would mean Paul and John have contradictory paradigms. Reformed theology simply reproduces that contradiction by affirming both Pauline and Johannine paradigms.

      ii) You may claim the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification is mistaken, but you can't legitimately do so by simply quoting a different Bible writer. Paul and John must be understood on their own terms. It's hermeneutically illicit to use John as the interpretive grid through which you filter Paul. To disprove the Reformed interpretation of Pauline justification, you need to demonstrate how that misinterprets Paul in the context of Paul's exposition of his own position.

      iii) This is an issue of systematic theology. How to harmonize the "theologies" of different Bible writers. In this case, the Bible itself doesn't explain how Paul and John are reconcilable. Therefore, any harmonization will be philosophical.

      Is it even meaningful to say a sin is forgiven before it's committed? At that stage there's no actual sin to forgive. Here's how Reformed theologians finesse the issue:

      "Justification means the forgiveness of all past and present sins, and the judicial ground for the forgiveness of future sins," Anthony Hoekema, Saved by Grace, 180.

      "Remission is extended to all the sins entirely of believers, of whatever kind they may be, future as well as past and present, but in their own order…All sins (future as well as past) cannot be said to be remitted at the same time…All our sins are remitted by God, whether past or present or future, but with respect to the time in which they are committed; so that past and present are actually remitted, the future when they are committed will most certainly be remitted according to God's promise," Turretin, Institutes, 2:665.

      Delete
  7. "i) God can and generally does foster saving faith by putting the elect in churches where they are indoctrinated in the true Gospel. The fact that arguments may be probable doesn't mean the providential process of inculcating Christian faith is probable. A reliable belief-forming process can produce true, warranted beliefs."

    But that is begging the question. You assume that Trinity, penal substitution etc. are true and say that God will lead people to churches which teach that doctrine. Unitarians and Jehovah's Witness could say as much about their doctrines and their churches. Yes, God will certainly lead His people to His Church, but if you can't identify where this Church is and consequently who these people are (and you can't, because epistemologically your claims are on the same level as those of Unitarians or any other group which claims to follow the Bible and lacks infallible authority), you still don't have epistemology which could account for what you believe in.

    "Finally, I warned you before that if you continue to recycle your stale objections, even though I've taken time to carefully respond to your objections, that you will be banned. This is your final warning."

    I find your responses wanting, which is why I press the issue - maybe you simply don't have good answers. In each of my posts I try to interact with what you write.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "But that is begging the question. You assume that Trinity, penal substitution etc. are true and say that God will lead people to churches which teach that doctrine. Unitarians and Jehovah's Witness could say as much about their doctrines and their churches."

      i) Competing opinions are not equivalent arguments.

      ii) You missed the point. I'm referring to simple Christians who lack the aptitude to defend their faith by reason and evidence. In their case, God fosters saving faith through social conditioning, by putting them in churches where they hear the true Gospel.

      That doesn't mean knowing or proving the truth necessarily depends on finding a good church. To the contrary, Christian intellectuals can acquire that information independent of church attendance. And they have the aptitude to defend their beliefs.

      "I find your responses wanting"

      I find your objections wanting. Your approval is not my touchstone.

      Delete
  8. Even if the Bible doesn't explicitly teach the imputation of Christ's righteousness that doesn't mean that it can't be reasonably inferred.

    Rom. 5:17 talks about the "free gift of righteousness." It's not something your earn or merit, but it's a gift that's also free. Both a "FREE gift" and a "free GIFT." Compare with Rom. 6:23 where eternal life is a "free gift." Notice that Rom. 6:23 says the *wages* of sin is death, but doesn't say that *wages* of grace empowered good works is eternal life in Christ (which is what Catholicism teaches and would require the verse to teach).

    Rom. 5:18-19 contrasts how Adam's trespass lead to many being made sinners and the condemnation of all men, so Christ's obedience and act of righteousness leads to life and justification and many being made righteous. Rom. 5:12-14 makes it clear that the sin of Adam is imputed to his descendants. It not merely on account of their own sins that they are condemned. That's why Paul talks about how death reigned from Adam to Moses even though there was no law which men committed which was like the sin Adam committed. Implying that just as the individual sins of Adam's descendants wasn't the determining primary factor of their condemnation, so the individual acts of righteousness of those who believe in Christ are not the determining primary factor in their justification. Thus implying that it's Christ's righteousness and merits that are imputed to the saved so that they actually are saved.

    A denial of the doctrine of Christ's righteousness imputed to us would undermine or weaken the doctrine of our sins being imputed to Him on the Cross, as well as the doctrine of Adam's sin and guilt to us. Moreover, the Biblical evidence of our sins being imputed to Christ on the cross along with the Biblical evidence for Adam's guilt and sin imputed to us supports the concept of the righteousness of Christ being imputed to us in justification.

    1 Cor. 1:30 states that Christ has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption. The word "righteousness" might also be translated "justification." If so, then this would be consistent with our justification being on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness. Christ becoming our righteousness makes much sense if His righteousness is imputed to us.

    Jer. 23:6 seems to be a prophecy of Christ and it describes Him as being Jehovah/Yahweh Tsidkenu, meaning "Yehovah [is] our Righteousness". This is consistent with Jesus' righteousness imputed to us as the basis of our justification.

    Isa. 45:25 states, "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." This is consistent with imputed righteousness.

    Isa. 61:10 also suggests the imputation of righteousness when it talks about being clothed with a robe of righteousness.

    Phil. 3:9 states, "...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The fact that God requires perfect obedience for entrance into heaven would seem to necessitate the imputed righteousness of Christ as the basis for justification. Since, all our works, even those performed by Grace after entering into a state of grace (i.e. after becoming a Christian) are always imperfect. They are always 1. tainted with sin, 2. lacking in positive effort and action. Jesus states that God's standard is absolute perfection when He said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48). James states, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it."

      The Roman Catholic view of justification lowers the bar for justification. Instead of God's perfectly high standard, it requires less than strictly perfect obedience for justification and for perseverance.

      Rom. 1:7 suggests that the Gospel reveals the Righteousness of God. Rom. 3:21-22 suggests that one is justified on the basis of God's righteousness. So, does Rom. 10:3-4. Assuming that Granville Sharp's rule applies in 2 Pet. 1:1, this verse suggests not only that Jesus is fully and truly God, but that God's righteousness by which we are justified is Jesus' own righteousness. John Gill commenting on this verse states, "Now faith comes "in", or "with" this righteousness, as the phrase may be rendered; when the Spirit of God reveals and brings near this righteousness to a poor sensible sinner, he at the same time works faith in him to look to it, lay hold upon it, and plead it as his justifying righteousness with God: or it comes "through" it; hence it appears that faith and righteousness are two distinct things; and that faith is not a man's righteousness before God, for it comes to him through it; as also that righteousness is before faith, or otherwise faith could not come by it; and, moreover, is the cause and reason of it; faith has no causal influence upon righteousness, but righteousness has upon faith: the reason why a man has a justifying righteousness is not because he has faith; but the reason why he has faith given him is because he has a justifying righteousness provided for him, and imputed to him."

      2 Cor. 5:21 implies that our sins were imputed to Christ on the cross, while His righteousness is imputed to us who believe. It states that we are made the righteousness of God "in him" [i.e. in Christ]. It is "IN Christ" in union with Him that we are made righteous. Which is consistent with the idea that it is Christ's righteousness imputed to us by which we are reckoned righteous.

      Delete
    2. "Rom. 5:17 talks about the "free gift of righteousness." It's not something your earn or merit, but it's a gift that's also free."

      Catholic view does not deny it, all good works are gifts of the Holy Spirit which do not come from ourselves, thus God's grace is sufficient. As Robert Sungenis rightly pointed out, if both faith and works are gift of the Holy Spirit, there is not reason to say "faith alone", because faith and works have same status as God's free gifts. It seems like you are operating on a common misunderstanding of Catholic theology.

      "doesn't say that *wages* of grace empowered good works is eternal life in Christ (which is what Catholicism teaches and would require the verse to teach)."

      More misrepresentation of the Catholic position. Eternal life is not wages for anything, it is a free gift from God, just like good works are. Its all God's grace and unmerited gift. The fact that God rewards us for good works and counts them as our merit does not change the fact that they are entirely His gift.

      "Implying that just as the individual sins of Adam's descendants wasn't the determining primary factor of their condemnation, so the individual acts of righteousness of those who believe in Christ are not the determining primary factor in their justification. Thus implying that it's Christ's righteousness and merits that are imputed to the saved so that they actually are saved."

      That is a misunderstanding. The reason why Adam's sin is emphasized by St. Paul in Romans 5 is not because somehow this sin has primary significance in condemnation over individual sins (as you suggest), but because it corrupted man's nature which led to man sinning and thus to his condemnation. As St. Paul makes abundantly clear in Romans 1:18-32, individual sins of Adam's descendants are indeed primary basis for their condemnation. Adam's sin is important not so much because it condems people by itself, but because it opened the door for people sinning through corrupting their nature, which St. Paul illustrates in Romans 1. Just as individual sins condemn, individual acts of righteousness received as God's gift can save.

      Delete
    3. "A denial of the doctrine of Christ's righteousness imputed to us would undermine or weaken the doctrine of our sins being imputed to Him on the Cross."

      Imputation of our sins to Christ on the Cross and penal substitution is not taught in Scripture either - you have to prove it before you declare that we allegedly shouldn't reject imputation because it would weaken penal substitution.

      "1 Cor. 1:30 states that Christ has become for us wisdom from God, and righteousness, sanctification and redemption."

      Do you then speak about "imputation of God's wisdom to the believer", by which God's wisdom is credited to the believer and believer's wisdom is imputed to Christ on the Cross? Surely not, because that is not what St. Paul means at all. He simply says that we are forgiven because of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, there is nothing about Protestant doctrine of "great exchange" here.

      "If so, then this would be consistent with our justification being on the basis of Christ's imputed righteousness. Christ becoming our righteousness makes much sense if His righteousness is imputed to us."

      That has to be demonstrated from the text, not asserted. No verse of Scripture says anything remotely similar to that.

      "Jer. 23:6 seems to be a prophecy of Christ and it describes Him as being Jehovah/Yahweh Tsidkenu, meaning "Yehovah [is] our Righteousness". This is consistent with Jesus' righteousness imputed to us as the basis of our justification."

      Again, eisegesis. You presuppose the doctrine of imputation and then come to the text like this and say "well, it doesn't contradict it". You have to demonstrate from the text that record of perfect obediance/perfect life/righteousness of Christ is imputed to the believer and than on this basis the believer is declared righteous before God. No verse in Scripture says anything like that.

      "Isa. 45:25 states, "In the LORD all the offspring of Israel shall be justified and shall glory." This is consistent with imputed righteousness."

      Eisegesis, again. You assume that "in the Lord" means imputation. Psalm 37:4 "Delight yourself in the Lord, and he will give you the desires of your heart". Does that mean that God's delight is imputed to the believer? Obviously, that is nonsensical. Phrase "in the Lord" means that everything we receive is from God, by God and is sustained by Him.

      Delete
    4. "Phil. 3:9 states, "...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith."

      Again, nothing about perfect record of Christ's righteousness being credited to the believer here. Just like in Romans 4:3-5, St. Paul teaches that believer is justified on the basis of his faith, i.e. his ontological state of believing in Christ. That is consistent with Catholic teaching that we are justified on the basis of our ontological state, not a legal declaration.

      "The fact that God requires perfect obedience for entrance into heaven would seem to necessitate the imputed righteousness of Christ as the basis for justification."

      Its precisely the opposite - necessity of perfect obediance rules out imputation, because underneath allegedly imputed righteousness of Christ a believer is still imperfect and sinful, and as such unfit to enter Heaven (Revelation 21:27, Hebrews 12:14). One must be ontologically fit to enter Heaven, because nothing sinful or imperfect can enter Heaven. Therefore, justification must include ontological change which makes believer intrinsically pleasing to God.

      "Since, all our works, even those performed by Grace after entering into a state of grace (i.e. after becoming a Christian) are always imperfect. They are always 1. tainted with sin, 2. lacking in positive effort and action."

      Jesus did not think so - see his conversation with a Scribe (Luke 10:28), conversation with rich young ruler, Luke 1:6 and many others.

      "Jesus states that God's standard is absolute perfection when He said, "You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect" (Matt. 5:48)."

      And it must be achievable, Jesus never says "but you can't do that and you need imputation of my righteousness". Absolute perfection understood as never sinning? No - Jesus uses hyperboles in the Sermon on the Mount all the time (Matthew 5:29-30, for example). Perfection as being in the state intrinsically pleasing to God? By God's grace it is possible.

      CatholicNick wrote a good article on that, and he hit the nail in the head saying:
      "Sadly, many Protestants I've come across think Jesus wasn't being serious when He gave this Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5-7), and rather they say Jesus only said these things to show just how sinful we really are and how we can never really obey these. But we all know better. That's just an excuse because the Sermon on the Mount totally contradicts Protestant theology."
      http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/09/imputation-and-jesus-be-ye-perfect-mt.html

      "James states, "For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it.""

      James speaks about the situation of being under the Law (if you are under the Law, you must fulfill it all to be justified). We are not under the Law because of Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, therefore this verse is irrelevant in this context.

      Delete
  9. Arvinger wrote:
    ...But Reformed theology insists that regeneration (i.e. the internal change done by the Holy Spirit within the believer) comes after justification...

    Actually, Reformed theology usually teaches that regeneration precedes conversion & justification (cf. John 3:3-5). That's contrary to the standard Arminian position which believes regeneration comes after or is simultaneous with conversion. The reason why Calvinists usually believe regeneration comes before conversion and justification is that that one needs to be made "spiritually alive" before one can positively respond to the Gospel (as per Total Depravity). I agree with that, but I hesitate to identify that with what the Bible calls regeneration. So, in my opinion, there might two or more senses of regeneration. The first is a theological necessity that's needed either before or simultaneous with conversion since "spiritually dead persons" cannot accept the Gospel (again as per Total Depravity). Then there's what the Bible refers to or is described as regeneration that is something that seems to happen after conversion or even in conjunction with baptism. However, I agree with standard Reformed theology and Steve that the Catholic understanding of baptismal regeneration and its (alleged) Biblical basis is false.

    But St. Paul says that regeneration is *means*, not *results* of salvation, which is completely incompatible with the Reformed doctrine of justification.

    Each Biblical author should be interpreted so that their use of terminology isn't forced upon other authors. Even then, single authors like Paul uses "saved/salvation" language sometimes strictly and sometimes loosely. Sometimes the word "saved/salvation" in the Bible refers to the whole process of salvation (which includes things like conversion, forgiveness, justification, adoption, sanctification [sometimes glorification] etc.). Other times it refers specifically to individual or segmented aspects of salvation like initial salvation as in justification, and/or conversion, and/or the process of sanctification (etc.). Biblical context helps explain in what sense an author is using it. Also, we must harmonize each individual authors theology in a consistent way with themselves, and then in a wider sense among the various authors. For example, Jesus' definition and usual use of the word "called" in the Gospels is different than Paul's usual use of the word. Jesus' use would correspond to the theological sense of *external* call that's public, whereas Paul's use usually refers to the *internal* call that's efficacious, private and invisible.

    Furthermore, you have not explained why St. Paul teaches that obediance leads to righteousness.......That goes against Romans 6:16.

    Calvinists have no problem affirming that. Paul uses "righteousness" in different senses. Sometimes to refer to the theological concept of "justification" other times not. Also most Calvinists have no problem affirming a final "justification" or vindication from God at the eschaton.

    CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Notice the different senses in which Protestant A.W. Pink uses and applies the concept of justification:

      Let it be said in conclusion that the justification of the Christian is complete the moment he truly believes in Christ, and hence there are no degrees in justification. The Apostle Paul was as truly a justified man at the hour of his conversion as he was at the close of his life. The feeblest babe in Christ is just as completely justified as is the most mature saint. Let theologians note the following distinctions. Christians were decretively justified from all eternity: efficaciously so when Christ rose again from the dead; actually so when they believed; sensibly so when the Spirit bestows joyous assurance; manifestly so when they tread the path of obedience; finally so at the Day of Judgment, when God shall sententiously, and in the presence of all created things, pronounce them so. [bold by me, AP]

      God looked at Abraham, saw his faith, and credited it to him as righteouness - thus, God did this on the basis of something that was ontologically within Abraham (faith), and thus Abraham was ontologically and objectively pleasing to God. There is nothing about extra nos imputation here

      That interpretation contradicts Paul's point that Abraham has no basis upon which to boast.

      For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God.- Rom. 4:2

      Given Arvinger's interpretation, Abraham could boast about his faith.

      Nowhere does St. Paul say that perfect record of Christ's obediance is imputed to the believer as his righteousness.

      God's standard is perfection (Matt. 5:48) and the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). Even in Catholicism, one doesn't merit salvation by strict merit. Which means Catholicism lowers the standard for entrance into the Kingdom.

      He says that faith is credited to a believer us as righteousness, which means that justification is based on something within the believer...

      Justification is by faith precisely because it's irrespective of the person's merit. That's Paul's whole point in Romans and Galatians.

      To the contrary, I distinguish between the two, which is one of many reasons why I attend the Mass - it is application of the atonement to the believer which as to be done constantly through time.

      Reformed theology is consistent with aspects and benefits of the atonement being applied at various times (sometimes repeatedly). However, Steve was specifically referring to that aspect and benefit of justification which is a one time thing. That's why St. Paul was able to say that "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus". Paul didn't say it only lasted until the you commit the next venial or (esp.) mortal sin.

      CONT.

      Delete
    2. As 1 John 1:9 teaches, forgiveness of sins happens continuously...

      Some Reformed folk like myself distinguish forgiveness by God as we relate to him as Judge and creature which occurs once at justification. With the daily forgiveness from God that we receive as we relate to Him as His children and He as our heavenly Father. It's the difference between a 1. courtroom and 2. family room context. Notice too that 1 John doesn't refer to confession to a priest in order to receive absolution.

      Penal substitution is not taught explicitly in Scripture either.

      That's debatable. But even if it weren't explicit, it's at least implicit. It's a reasonable inference based on many passages in Scripture both OT and NT. No other theory of the atonement does as good or better at making sense of the Biblical data.

      Unitarians and Jehovah's Witness could say as much about their doctrines and their churches.

      No, because they don't believe in UNconditional election, nor in exhaustive providential control on God's part.

      ...but if you can't identify where this Church is...

      That itself begs the question that the "Church" is one united organization/institution/denomination. But that doesn't follow at all from Scripture OR church history. The Catholic Church for example says the Orthodox are schismatics, yet simultaneously and strangely affirm that Orthodoxy's claim to apostolic succession is genuine. Or think of how someone living during the FIVE Decade long Arian Ascendency in the church in the 4th century would be confused as to which was true church and which is the correct doctrine. At this time one could almost conclude that the orthodox position was that of Arianism. Especially since many in the church who held high office were Arian. Hence the idea that Athanasius was fighting "against the world" (...contra mundum).

      ...you still don't have epistemology which could account for what you believe in.

      As if Protestants generally, and Calvinistic presuppositionalists specifically haven't addressed these issues, lol!

      An atheist will say you push the problem on step back regarding authority of the Bible. It is based on your private judgment and you could be wrong. Therefore, if I cannot have certainty about the authority of the Magisterium, you cannot have certainty regarding inspiration of the Bible.

      The transcedental truth and non-falsifiability of Christianity doesn't depend on any individual person's confidence of the truth of Christianity. That confuses 1. the truth of Christianity with 2. KNOWing the truth of Christianity and 3. SHOWing (i.e. giving arguments) the truth of Christianity. Certainty comes from the coupling of the EXTERNAL testimony of Scripture (or Scriptural truth if one can't read) WITH the INTERNAL testimony of the Holy Spirit. Arguments and evidence can and should help, but they aren't absolutely necessary to know the truth of Christianity.

      See Craig's lecture Christian Apologetics: Who Needs It?
      https://youtu.be/Tq8eDlt_orI

      Delete
    3. "Some Reformed folk like myself distinguish forgiveness by God as we relate to him as Judge and creature which occurs once at justification. With the daily forgiveness from God that we receive as we relate to Him as His children and He as our heavenly Father. It's the difference between a 1. courtroom and 2. family room context."

      The problem is that 1 John never makes this distinction. It simply sets confession of sins as a necessary condition of being forgiven of these sins, which clearly indicates that in case a believer fails to confess and repent he will not be forigven. This also refutes the claim that all future sins are forgiven in the moment of justification - if they were, future confession would not be set as condition for forgiveness. I'm afraid you introduce unbiblical distinction between alleged two different kinds of forgiveness in order to rationalize 1 John 1:9 into Reformed system.

      "Notice too that 1 John doesn't refer to confession to a priest in order to receive absolution."

      I never claimed that and I set this issue aside for this moment, my point was that future confession of sins as condition for forgiveness rules out one-time forensic justification and show justification to be a life-long conditional process.

      "That's debatable. But even if it weren't explicit, it's at least implicit. It's a reasonable inference based on many passages in Scripture both OT and NT. No other theory of the atonement does as good or better at making sense of the Biblical data."

      Well, that's just an assertion with which I completely disagree.

      "No, because they don't believe in UNconditional election, nor in exhaustive providential control on God's part."

      You miss the point. Any group which claims to follow the Bible can say "we are right, we have true doctrine, and God will lead his people to us". Obviously, without infallible authority each such claim has the same epistemological weight (fallible assertion of an individual or group), and as such there is no objective way to verify who is right. I completely agree that God will lead His people to His Church - but that in itself does not explain where His Church is.

      "That itself begs the question that the "Church" is one united organization/institution/denomination. But that doesn't follow at all from Scripture OR church history. The Catholic Church for example says the Orthodox are schismatics, yet simultaneously and strangely affirm that Orthodoxy's claim to apostolic succession is genuine."

      Again, misunderstanding of Catholic teaching. Eastern Orthodox have valid material succession of Holy Orders (they have valid priesthood), but they do not have formal Apostolic Succession because of lack of jurisdiction caused by their schism. They are outside the Church of Christ and need to be converted for salvation.

      Delete
    4. "Or think of how someone living during the FIVE Decade long Arian Ascendency in the church in the 4th century would be confused as to which was true church and which is the correct doctrine. At this time one could almost conclude that the orthodox position was that of Arianism. Especially since many in the church who held high office were Arian. Hence the idea that Athanasius was fighting "against the world" (...contra mundum)."

      That kind of reasoning does not seem to indicate a high view of God's providence. God will lead His elect to His Church no matter of historical circumstances and degree of confusion. All those who died as Arians will be without excuse on Judgment Day.

      "As if Protestants generally, and Calvinistic presuppositionalists specifically haven't addressed these issues, lol!"

      Surely they did, but Protestantism creates a frame within which it is impossible to resolve the problem of lack of objective knowledge about God's revelation.

      "The transcedental truth and non-falsifiability of Christianity doesn't depend on any individual person's confidence of the truth of Christianity."

      I agree, but a Muslim san cay that non-falsifiability of Islam doesn't depend on any individual person's confidence of the truth of Islam. Within Protestant epistemology and tu quoque argument against Catholicism taken to its logical conclusion none of these statements have greater epistemological weight.

      "That confuses 1. the truth of Christianity with 2. KNOWing the truth of Christianity and 3. SHOWing (i.e. giving arguments) the truth of Christianity."

      But if one doesn't have 2) (and under Protestant epistemology and with an argument "Catholics use private judgment to conclude that the Catholic Church is true!" it is indeed impossible - if truthfulness of Catholicism is merely a matter of private judgment, so is truthfulness of the Bible, and the most one can say is that truthfulness of Christianity is probable), then we can't claim 1) and absolute truth and can't objectively demonstrate 3), because we have no epistemological basis for that. Everything is reduced to probabilities. Christianity is more probable than Islam, theism is more probable than atheism.

      "Certainty comes from the coupling of the EXTERNAL testimony of Scripture (or Scriptural truth if one can't read) WITH the INTERNAL testimony of the Holy Spirit."

      But an atheist will tell you that this is begging the question - you assume inspiration of Scripture and existence of the Holy Spirit. Obviously, an atheist is wrong and you are correct, and truthfulness of Scripture is indeed a necessary axiom and a presupposition - I have no problem with that, because the highest authority by definition cannot be verified any further. But so is the truthfulness of the Catholic Church - it is a presupposition, because the Catholic Church is the highest interpretetive authority, and thus be definition cannot be verified any further (otherwise, we face an infinite regression of verifications of each next level of authority). Therefore, if one uses the argument "but it is your private judgment that the Catholic Church is true", it opens the door for using the same argument against the Bible by an atheist. Joe Heschmeyer explained it very succintly in the first part of this article:
      http://shamelesspopery.com/the-protestant-fallacy-that-threatens-to-undermine-christianity/

      I apologize to Steve if some of my statements seem to repeat the ones from previous discussions on this blog, but it looks like all the Protestant arguments I receive back here also fundamentally boil down to the same thing, which is not surprising, since we talk about fundamental and most basic epistemological foundations of what we believe in, and I'm trying to explain why I find the Protestant foundations insufficient.

      Delete
  10. 8 Peter said to him, "You shall never wash my feet." Jesus answered him, "If I do not wash you, you have no share with me."
    9 Simon Peter said to him, "Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!"
    10 Jesus said to him, "The one who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but is completely clean. And you are clean, but not every one of you."- John 13:8-10

    In Catholicism the grace of justification is lost whenever one commits a mortal sin. Daily forgiveness in Reformed theology is like the washing of one's feet described above. According to Reformed theology a believer doesn't need to be completely bathed as if he didn't remain essentially clean. In John's theology regeneration and salvation lasts.

    No one born of God makes a practice of sinning, for God's seed abides in him, and he cannot keep on sinning because he has been born of God.- 1 John 3:9

    Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever 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.- John 5:24

    The "sin unto death" in 1 John 5:16 has been used by Catholics to ground the doctrine of mortal sin. However, just a few verses later the author says in verse 18:

    We know that everyone who has been born of God does not keep on sinning, but he who was born of God protects him, and the evil one does not touch him.- 1 John 5:18

    They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.- 1 John 2:19


    Yet at the same time the author said earlier:

    8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
    9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
    10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.- 1 John 1:8-9

    Apparently the author of 1 John taught that genuine Christians will still sin, need daily forgiveness, yet at the same time will not live a lifestyle of sinning so as to lose salvation. That's completely consistent with Reformed theology. Compare Paul's statement "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 8:1). The doctrine of perseverance can be derived from Paul's theology too. It's usually connected with his doctrine of election, but can also be inferred from His doctrine of justification and regeneration (cf. Phil. 1:6; Rom. 8:28-39 etc). But there's no point in documenting that too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Catholic view does not deny it, all good works are gifts of the Holy Spirit which do not come from ourselves, thus God's grace is sufficient.

    I have all (?) three of Sungenis' "Not By ________ Alone" books. I haven't read them in their entirety or fully understand Sungenis' views, nevertheless I think they are great resource for both Catholics and Protestants. I've summarized my tentative understanding of Sungenis' views and the reasons for my disagreements in my comments HERE. I agree that Catholicism (or RCism for short) isn't Pelagian, or even Semi-Pelagian. I also agree that RCism denies that salvation can be earned by strict merit, but rather that it can be merited by grace empowered works. That was Augustine's view and like most Calvinists I suspect Augustine made it to heaven. Augustine even combated proto-Solafidean positions in his day. So, I personally don't think that it's a damnable heresy to believe that we can merit our salvation by works which were empowered by Grace, and that both faith and good works can be seen as God's gifts. So, that rewards can be said to be (as Augustine put it) God crowning His own gifts. Augustine was just mistaken in his interpretation of Scripture (partly due to the poor translation he was working with).

    However, 1. Modern RCism (post Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II) goes WAYYYYY beyond Augustine and his contemporary Catholic Church in its doctrines. Modern RCism (mRCism) has added to the Gospel things that the 4th century Church would have had no idea about like indulgences, Bodily Assumption of Mary, Immaculate Conception, Sinlessness of Mary, Papal Infallibility etc. Doctrines like indulgences, the treasury of merit, the Mass as propitiatory (etc.) compromise the Biblical doctrines of grace and the sufficiency of Christ's atonement (despite sophisticated ways to get around the charges of contradicting the Bible).

    2.Catholic apologists aren't in agreement regarding which kind of works Paul rejects as contributing to salvation. Probably because Trent's anathemas aren't sufficiently clear and are themselves internally inconsistent with each other, as well as misunderstanding what the Reformers taught (and so sometimes shooting down strawmen). For example, Matatics (now a virtual sedevacantist) argued that it referred only to ceremonial works. While Sungenis' view is that Paul was rejecting absolute strict merit type of works. Sungenis' view is more sophisticated and can better fit with the Biblical data, nevertheless I think Sungenis' view still violates the teaching (meaning & intent) of Scripture. Which leads to #3 below. CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 3. Nowhere in Scripture are Sungenis' distinctions taught in the Bible. They are read into them and imposed upon them. It's common for Catholics (like James Akin) to say things like "And, in fact, the formula "faith alone" is against the language used in the Bible...". However, the opposite can be said too. The idea that graciously empowered works meriting salvation goes against the language/wording and (more importantly) the meaning/intent of Scripture. Scripture's contrast between faith and works are such that it can make sense to clarify faith with the phrase "faith alone". However, to say that when the Bible excludes works it's only referring to certain kinds of works (which aren't themselves defined in Scripture) is to add to the meaning of the Word of God. I agree with the Pro-Nicene group at Nicaea that sometimes we need to use extra-Scriptural words to get to and defend the meaning/intent of Scripture. Whereas sticking to the exact wording of Scripture can not only ambiguate meaning, but provide shelter in which heresy can hide. That's all "Sola Fide" does. Nowhere in all of Scripture can one find the nuanced and sophisticated (yes even "SOPHISTICAL" in the negative sense) theology of mRCism.

      More misrepresentation of the Catholic position. Eternal life is not wages for anything,...

      If I recall correctly, Sungenis has said in interviews/lectures that eternal life is the wages of grace empowered good works.

      Arvinger, when it comes to your exegesis of Roman 5, I think that can be be made to harmonize with Reformed theology if tweeked a bit (IMO). For the last few years I haven't been as certain as I used to be that Adam's sin resulted in automatic guilt for all his descendants (a standard position in Calvinism, of which I generally subscribe). Though, I lean toward it because the imputation of Adam's guilt to his descendants, maintains the symmetry of our sins imputed to Christ on the Cross, and Christ's righteousness imputed to the believer. Of course someone could argue that all three imputations are false. My commitment is to Scripture's teaching, even if that might mean I would have to tweek my Calvinist theology. BTW, I'm a former (Roman) Catholic. Been a confirmed Evangelical for about 24 years.

      Imputation of our sins to Christ on the Cross and penal substitution is not taught in Scripture either...

      I think there's plenty of Biblical data for penal substitution. The whole OT sacrificial system assumed it. See my blogpost where I link to William Lane Craig's 1. studies on the Atonement, 2. two lectures on the atonement, and 3. his weekly Sunday school class on the Work of Christ:

      The Atonement Studies by William Lane Craig
      http://misclane.blogspot.com/2016/11/the-atonement-studies-by-william-lane.html

      Craig addresses the theological and philosophical issues more than the Biblical case for penal substitution in those videos. CONT.

      Delete
    2. Do you then speak about "imputation of God's wisdom to the believer", by which God's wisdom is credited to the believer and believer's wisdom is imputed to Christ on the Cross?

      Consistency on my part wouldn't require that since I only claim that the Bible can be reasonably inferred to teach the imputation of our sins to Christ and His righteousness to us. All aspects of salvation are found and grounded in Christ and His work, along with the application by the Holy Spirit.

      Again, eisegesis. You presuppose the doctrine of imputation and then come to the text like this and say "well, it doesn't contradict it".

      Notice, I didn't claim those passages explicitly teach imputation. Only that they were consistent with it. So, I'm not claiming more than the texts themselves say or teach. When it comes to theology I think we have to formulate them abductively. To see which theories best fit with all of the data. See my blogpost on Explanatory Power and Scope.

      St. Paul teaches that believer is justified on the basis of his faith, i.e. his ontological state of believing in Christ.

      Where's THAT in Scripture?

      That is consistent with Catholic teaching that we are justified on the basis of our ontological state, not a legal declaration.

      Forensic language regarding justification is clear in the Pauline corpus. For example, Roman 8:33-34a which states, "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn?...." Notice how justification is contrasted with a charge of condemnation.

      One must be ontologically fit to enter Heaven, because nothing sinful or imperfect can enter Heaven. Therefore, justification must include ontological change which makes believer intrinsically pleasing to God.

      Reformed theology affirms God does make people fit for heaven in sanctification and in instantaneous glorification. As well as God making us intrinsically pleasing to Him. But that's distinct from what commends us or makes us acceptable to God as our cosmic Judge. The thief on the cross upon death would enter the presence of Christ in heaven without haivng to go through purgatory for purgation. Yes, mRCism denies there's a temporal element to purgatory, but in times past Catholicism did attach temporal categories to purgatory. Which just goes to show how Catholic theology changes and contradicts itself and Scripture.

      CONT.

      Delete
    3. And it must be achievable, Jesus never says "but you can't do that and you need imputation of my righteousness".

      A rejection of penal substitution results in always having one's sins to come back and haunt them, making them unfit for heaven because they don't have a perfect record of never having sinned. If one were FROM NOW ON to be morally perfect, there would still be a record of sin in their past. The Apostles' teaching in the NT is that Christians still continue to sin and need periodic forgiveness. Where do any of the Apostles (or even Christ) teach that one can actually arrive at moral perfection in this life? OR that any of the Apostles did arrive? Christ's description of what it takes to earn salvation via strict merit is not an endorsement of that way of salvation. As Paul said in Galatians, the Law was our guardian/schoolmaster to lead (even drive) us to Christ. Jesus taught that it was the tax collector who beat his breast, saying, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner!" who went down to his house justified. Catholicism has to invent purgatory so as to make room for how it is that imperfect believers who never arrived at perfection in this world before death can eventually get to heaven.

      Absolute perfection understood as never sinning? No - Jesus uses hyperboles in the Sermon on the Mount all the time (Matthew 5:29-30, for example). Perfection as being in the state intrinsically pleasing to God? By God's grace it is possible.

      Yet, you JUST SAID, "And it must be achievable..." When it comes to the Sermon on the Mount you appeal to Jesus' use of hyperbole. Yet, when it came to the Rich Young Ruler you seemed to imply that Jesus' prescriptions for entrance into heaven are not hyperbolic. I agree that some of the statements in the Sermon on the Mount may be hyperbolic, but Jesus' requirement of moral perfection ISN'T. The details of what God requires and our interpretation of them (literal or hyperbolic) is distinct from the issue of the degree to which we must obey them (quantity and quality). God's standard is still perfection, and your statements demonstrate that Catholicism really does lower the bar for the requirements of entrance into heaven.

      I'm afraid you introduce unbiblical distinction between alleged two different kinds of forgiveness in order to rationalize 1 John 1:9 into Reformed system.

      I'm affraid you and Sungenis introduce unbiblical distinction between the different kinds of works.

      ...my point was that future confession of sins as condition for forgiveness rules out one-time forensic justification and show justification to be a life-long conditional process.

      I addressed this when I cited the passage where Jesus said one who has bathed doesn't need to bath again but only have his feet washed.

      ....and as such there is no objective way to verify who is right.

      Scripture is the objective source, standard and judge. As a Calvinist I believe it is sufficiently clear to save the elect. While some Calvinists wouldn't say the following, I dare say, that Scripture is also sufficiently vague so as not to lead to the salvation of the non-elect. I have much agreement with some of the quotes I've collected of Catholic and Augustinian Blaise Pascal HERE.

      Delete
    4. That kind of reasoning does not seem to indicate a high view of God's providence.

      I don't have too low a view of God's providence. You have too low a view of man's depravity and how that can lead to errors and sins in a Church denomination (e.g. inquisition, evil pedophilic, adulterous and murderous Popes, false doctrine etc.).

      Within Protestant epistemology and tu quoque argument against Catholicism taken to its logical conclusion none of these statements have greater epistemological weight.

      I don't see how for two reasons 1. when the objective evidence favors Christianity and Evangelical theology, 2. a.) the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, b.) the sensus divinitatis/deitatis, and c.) the inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit.

      But an atheist will tell you that this is begging the question

      But neither of us are atheists.

      But so is the truthfulness of the Catholic Church - it is a presupposition, because the Catholic Church is the highest interpretetive authority, and thus be definition cannot be verified any further (otherwise, we face an infinite regression of verifications of each next level of authority).

      The CC's behavior and theology contradicts itself historically in multiple intersecting and networking ways down through the centuries, as well as contradicting Scripture. I don't see a need for an infallible interpretive authority for knowing the truth of Christianity or for receiving salvation. Regarding contradictions, I'm thinking of things like whether Joan of Arc was a heretic or saint? What of Honorius if papal infallibility true? Is capital punishment permitted or not? Given the Catholic Catechism's statements about Muslims (et al.), how is that not a contradiction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it has been understood historically in times past? How are Protestants who are schismatics and heretics in Vatican I, be "separated brethren" in Vatican II? What of the changing views regarding what constitutes mortal sin? Examples could be multiplied. Yes, Catholics have solutions to these problems, but they aren't persuasive (at least to me). They often requires a lot of ad hoc explanations and special pleading and other fallacies.

      Delete
    5. Arvinger, I don't really understand your epistemological concerns. Maybe you're saying that in order for presuppositional Evangelicalism to work and be true it mus provide rationally coercive slam dunk evidences and arguments. While I'm a Van Tillian presupper, maybe presuppositionalism is false. Even among Evangelicals, there are (generally) 5 different kind of presuppositionalism:

      1. Van Tillian (authoritative/authorian) Revelational presuppositionalism
      2. Clarkian Deductive/Dogmatic/Axiomatic/Rational presuppositionalism
      3. Carnellian Systematic Coherency/Consistency presuppositionalism
      4. Schaefferian Practical presuppositionalism
      5. Nashian Abductive presuppositionalism (Nash thought #3 and #4 were also abductive).

      Only Van Tillian presuppositionalism have adherents that claim that the evidence and arguments ***must*** be slam dunks or nearly so. The other 4 versions don't claim that. Some Van Tillians like myself don't believe it has to be rationally coercive. Especially since the external evidences for Christianity rise and fall in the shifting sands of history and from generation to generation. I believe that Van Tillians who hold that the case for Christianity must be slam dunks don't realize how much Van Til hinged the certainty of the case for Christianity on the sensus divinitatis. Also, that they under-emphasize the fact that persuasion by the evidence requires regeneration and the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit. Also, that (IMO) God has regulated the evidence to be sufficiently vague to condemn the non-elect for their sin.

      See these quotes from Blaise Pascal which I have much agreement with:

      Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

      OR

      563 The prophecies, the very miracles and proofs of our religion, are not of such a nature that they can be said to be absolutely convincing. But they are also of such a kind that it cannot be said that it is unreasonable to believe them. Thus there is both evidence and obscurity to enlighten some and confuse others. But the evidence is such that it surpasses, or at least equals, the evidence to the contrary; so that it is not reason which can determine men not to follow it, and thus it can only be lust or malice of heart. And by this means there is sufficient evidence to condemn, and insufficient to convince; so that it appears in those who follow it, that it is grace, and not reason, which makes them follow it; and in those who shun it, that it is lust, not reason, which makes them shun it.

      577 There is sufficient clearness to enlighten the elect, and sufficient obscurity to humble them. There is sufficient obscurity to blind the reprobate, and sufficient clearness to condemn them, and make them inexcusable.—Saint Augustine, Montaigne, Sébond.

      574 All things work together for good to the elect, even the obscurities of Scripture; for they honour them because of what is divinely clear. And all things work together for evil to the rest of the world, even what is clear; for they revile such, because of the obscurities which they do not understand.

      562 It will be one of the confusions of the damned to see that they are condemned by their own reason, by which they claimed to condemn the Christian religion.

      576 God has made the blindness of this people subservient to the good of the elect.

      Delete
    6. "A rejection of penal substitution results in always having one's sins to come back and haunt them, making them unfit for heaven because they don't have a perfect record of never having sinned. If one were FROM NOW ON to be morally perfect, there would still be a record of sin in their past."

      Not at all, because once you are forgiven by God the sins are wiped out (Acts 3:19) - forgiveness results in ontological change of the believer. A Catholic leaving the confessional is sinless, he is no longer guilty of any of his transgressions, and as such he is fit for Heaven. If he loses that state, he can regain it.

      "Consistency on my part wouldn't require that since I only claim that the Bible can be reasonably inferred to teach the imputation of our sins to Christ and His righteousness to us. All aspects of salvation are found and grounded in Christ and His work, along with the application by the Holy Spirit"

      Consistency requires this on exegetical ground. If Christ being righteousness in 1 Corinthians 1:30 means imputation of Christ righteousness to the believer, then it must mean imputation of wisdom as well, since wisdom is mentioned together with righteousness. Same problem with sanctification, which is mentioned together with righteousness - is Christ's sanctification imputed to believer and vice versa? Surely not. You are cherrypicking because of your previous theological commitments. If 1 Coritnhians 1:30 is about imputation, it is imputation of wisdom, righteousness and sanctification (since the three are mentioned together without distinction), which is nonsensical, which proves the interpretation to be false.

      "Scripture's contrast between faith and works are such that it can make sense to clarify faith with the phrase "faith alone"."

      Most of the times this distinction is made it is between works of the ceremonial Mosaic law and faith in Christ (Romans 3:28, Galatians 2:16). In Romans 3:28 it is partivularly obvious, since the very next verses say that Jews and Gentiles will be justified the same way, regardless of circumcision - St. Paul is targeting the uslesness of the Mosaic ceremonies for justification. It has nothing to do with faith alone in the Reformed understanding.

      "Christ's description of what it takes to earn salvation via strict merit is not an endorsement of that way of salvation."

      The whole Sermon on the Mount is prescriptive - Jesus says that this is what you need to do to be saved. Nowhere does Jesus say "but these requirements are impossible to fulfill, so you need my righteousness imputed to you." Your claim that "Christ's description [which is not just description - Jesus clearly commands it to the disciples] is not an endorsement" is not based on exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount, but your previous theological commitment which can't allow for the Sermon on the Mount to mean what it says - you have to do those things to be saved.

      "I think there's plenty of Biblical data for penal substitution. The whole OT sacrificial system assumed it."

      Not at all. There are examples of Old Testament sacrifices which were clearly not penal substitution. Take, for example, sacrifice of the Israelites from Exodus 12. it is not a penal substitution for Israel's sins, rather it was ordered by God to mark the houses of the Israelites and distinguish them from Egyptians, so that they do not suffer from the final plague (Exodus 12:13).

      "Notice, I didn't claim those passages explicitly teach imputation. Only that they were consistent with it."

      One can come up with all sorts of different theories on many issues which do not explicitly contradict Scripture. That does not mean they are true. You must demonstrate that imputation of righteousness of the believer is positively taught in the Bible. Otherwise, what reason do I have to believe in it?

      Delete
    7. "Yet, you JUST SAID, "And it must be achievable..." When it comes to the Sermon on the Mount you appeal to Jesus' use of hyperbole. Yet, when it came to the Rich Young Ruler you seemed to imply that Jesus' prescriptions for entrance into heaven are not hyperbolic."

      Because there is nothing in the context indicating that what Jesus said to the rich young ruler was hyperbolic. If the rich young ruler followed Jesus' command, he could have been saved. On the other hand, command from the Sermon on the Mount to cut one's hand off is clearly hyperbolic - Jesus does not mean you have to take an axe and literally chop your hand off.

      "I agree that some of the statements in the Sermon on the Mount may be hyperbolic, but Jesus' requirement of moral perfection ISN'T."

      It is not in a sense that one must indeed be perfect to please God, it is in a sense that perfection does not mean you never commit a single sin during your life. Forgiveness results in complete wiping out of sins (Acts 3:19), forgiving the sinner God changes him into someone objectively pleasing to Him and thus fulfilling condition of sinlesness from Matthew 5:48.


      "Catholicism has to invent purgatory so as to make room for how it is that imperfect believers who never arrived at perfection in this world before death can eventually get to heaven."

      First of all, Purgatory has nothing to do with justifiation (only fully justified people go to Purgatory), but with temporal punishment and removal of sinful tendencies/attachment in our soul. Secondly, the concept is explicitly taught in 1 COrinthians 3:10-15 where some of the believers who are saved receive reward directly (if they works stand the test of fire), others are saved only as through fire if they works do not survive the test. As Ambrosiaster says in the oldest commentary on 1 Corinthians 3: "When he says only as though fire, he shows that though he will be saved, he will nevertheless suffer the penalty of fire, so that, being cleansed by fire, he might be saved and not be tortured b ythe eternal fire forever, as the faithless are".

      Delete
    8. So long as non-Christians (whether non-elect or elect) persist in their rejection of Christianity, they do so against the sensus divinitatis. In my view, people who hear a sufficiently accurate (even if flawed and incomplete) proclamation of the Gospel should hear a ring of truth to it on account of it plucking existential strings in the human soul made in the imago dei.

      There's a kind of "homing beacon" (so to speak) whereby people ought sense the truth of Christianity even if little evidence and bad argumentation is provided. People ought to know via General Revelation that a God exists and when they hear the Gospel they should see how it solves many of their existential problems of meaning; dealing with guilt; a longing for eternal life; a longing for the Good, the True and the Beautiful; a desire for justice; a source of goodness and a personal object to whom one can give thanks and praise et cetera.

      Even in the case of people exposed to false Christianities (e.g. LDS, WTBTS etc.) they should eventually come to a place where they are convicted to get behind the false façade and dig deeper historically and Scripturally to a more Biblical point of view.

      Delete
    9. "The details of what God requires and our interpretation of them (literal or hyperbolic) is distinct from the issue of the degree to which we must obey them (quantity and quality). God's standard is still perfection, and your statements demonstrate that Catholicism really does lower the bar for the requirements of entrance into heaven."

      It doesn't. We must be sinless to enter Heaven, and a justified Catholic is indeed sinless because forgiveness of sin removes these sins from his soul. That does not mean he never sins. A final effect (state of sinlesness at the moment of death) is what counts. Jesus says in Matthew 5:48 that we must be perfect - and justified Catholics are indeed perfect and sinless by God's grace. That does not mean that they never sinned in the past, but that God transformed them into sinless people in justification. Such is the power of the Gospel.

      "What of Honorius if papal infallibility true?"

      Letters to another memebr of Church heirarchy, which is where Honorius expressed unorthodox views, are not part of the Magisterium and are not protected by infallibility.

      "Is capital punishment permitted or not?"

      Of course it is, John Paul II and Francis who taught to the contrary are probavble formal heretics and anti-Popes. The Catholic Church has always supported death penalty.

      "Given the Catholic Catechism's statements about Muslims (et al.), how is that not a contradiction of extra ecclesiam nulla salus as it has been understood historically in times past? How are Protestants who are schismatics and heretics in Vatican I, be "separated brethren" in Vatican II?"

      These contradiction which you describe are due to the fact that Vatican II was a heretical and non-Catholic Council called by probable anti-Popes and conducted by non-Catholic hierarchy. The Chair of Peter is most likely vacant (at least formally) since 1958. This apostasy at the top of the Catholic Church was predicted in numerous private revelations, including Fatima.

      "Maybe you're saying that in order for presuppositional Evangelicalism to work and be true it mus provide rationally coercive slam dunk evidences and arguments."

      That is not what I meant. In general I agree that presuppositional approach is necessary, because there is always the final authority which cannot be verified any further and must be presupposed, otherwise we face an infinite regression of justifying subsequent levels of authority. My objection was that Protestants like Steve argue: "you Catholics youse your private judgment to conclude that the Catholic Church is true!", when I explain that truthfulness of Catholicism is a presupposition just like truthfulness of the Bible, because both are final authorities which cannot be verified any further. Therefore, if a Protestant claims that I just use my private judgment to establish truthfulness of Catholicism, logically he opens way for Muslim or atheist to claim the same about you belief in inspiration of the Bible - "it is just your private judgment!". Thus, authority of the Bible (and of everything) is reduced to private judgment. This specific Protestant argument against Catholicism proves too much.

      In other words, you cannot argue (like Steve does) that belief in truthfulness of Catholicism is just a matter of private judgment without conceding that belief in truthfulness of the Bible is likewise just a matter of private judgment. The reality is that both are fundamental presuppositions and must be treated as such, because the Magisterium and the Bible are final authorities which are nut subject to further verification.

      Delete
    10. "I don't see how for two reasons 1. when the objective evidence favors Christianity and Evangelical theology, 2. a.) the convicting work of the Holy Spirit, b.) the sensus divinitatis/deitatis, and c.) the inner Testimony of the Holy Spirit."

      Your private interpretation of the Bible favors Evangelical theology, not objective evidence. Your private interpretation does not equal objective evidence. As to the Holy Spirit, all sorts of groups claiming to follow the Bible claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, even though they believe often in radically different things, and of course without infallible authority there is no way to objectivly verify their claims.

      Delete
  12. Not at all, because once you are forgiven by God the sins are wiped out (Acts 3:19)...

    The question is, how were they wiped out? You didn't pay their penalty, and you deny Christ pay them (at least penally). As I understand it, RC affirm substitutionary atonement, but they deny it's penal. I readily admit that my knowledge of Catholic theology is sorely lacking (despite being a former Catholic).

    If he loses that state, he can regain it.

    If I'm not mistaken, the commission of a mortal sin causes one to cease being a child of God until one properly receives the sacrament of reconciliation (or at least a desire for it if one's death prevents it). That doesn't fit well with John's statement that the seed of God remains in the believer. Also, it seems strange to me that the commission of a mortal sin causes one to lose all past merits, yet once forgiven, those merits can be taken up again and placed into one' account.

    If Christ being righteousness in 1 Corinthians 1:30 means imputation of Christ righteousness to the believer, then it must mean imputation of wisdom as well

    I didn't say that 1 Cor. 1:30 teaches imputation, only that it's consistent with it. I also gave abductive reasons for why imputation of Christ's righteousness makes sense given the Biblical data, logic, and theology. Other theologians have done more work in demonstrating what I only surveyed.

    Most of the times this distinction is made it is between works of the ceremonial Mosaic law and faith in Christ

    Right. I don't deny that. What I deny is Paul limiting it to that. Especially since he includes moral sins and virtues in his discussion of works.

    The whole Sermon on the Mount is prescriptive

    Correct. The Sermon on the Mount is about how to live the Christian life, not how to merit salvation. Jesus wasn't thinking or speaking in theological terms like Paul was when specifically discussing justification.

    Your claim that "Christ's description [which is not just description - Jesus clearly commands it to the disciples] is not an endorsement" is not based on exegesis of the Sermon on the Mount

    My statement was in regards to Jesus' statements to the Rich Young Ruler to whom He said (in essence) obey the moral law of God.

    ...but your previous theological commitment which can't allow for the Sermon on the Mount to mean what it says - you have to do those things to be saved.

    I can affirm that you need to do those things to make it to heaven, but that's different than saying it earns (Pelagian) or even merits salvation (via initiating grace, or what Catholics would call co-operating grace). Calvinists affirm we must do good works to get to heaven. But they aren't the basis upon which we are worthy of heaven. CONT.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are examples of Old Testament sacrifices which were clearly not penal substitution.

      Saying that some sacrifices weren't penal (true), isn't to say that none were penal.

      One can come up with all sorts of different theories on many issues which do not explicitly contradict Scripture. That does not mean they are true.

      And the distinctive theories of Catholic "meritology" are much more extra-Scriptural than Protestant distinctives, BY FAR!

      You must demonstrate that imputation of righteousness of the believer is positively taught in the Bible. Otherwise, what reason do I have to believe in it?

      Read some Protestant books and articles on the topic. I'm sure they are more informed than I am.

      It is not in a sense that one must indeed be perfect to please God, it is in a sense that perfection does not mean you never commit a single sin during your life.

      Again, your position lowers God's standards. It makes God wink at sin. Makes God unjust by not punishing sin, and rewarding imperfect works with salvation.

      Regarding Purgatory, I would refer you to James White's debates with Sungenis on the topic. If I recall correctly, they debated the topic at least twice. I think White has lost (or nearly so) a few debates with Sungenis, but I think one of them regarding purgatory is one where White clearly won.

      We must be sinless to enter Heaven, and a justified Catholic is indeed sinless because forgiveness of sin removes these sins from his soul.

      On my view, sinlessness is not enough. One must have perfect POSITIVE righteousness. God not only commands we obey Him, but that we obey Him perfectly. RCism teaches salvation by merit, not by mere innocence. The problem again is that all our works is as filthy rags (that's Isaiah's description of works that include those who were godly in Israel and in the Covenant). Jesus said, when we've done what's required, we can only says we're "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:10). That's because our good works are tainted by sin and lack qualitatively and quantitatively. The first great commandment is to love God with all our heart/soul/mind/strength. No one does that for one second, much less for the majority of his life. If one can't fulfill the first and greatest commandment, what make one think he can fulfill the rest?

      A final effect (state of sinlesness at the moment of death) is what counts.

      That's the type of thinking that made people like Constantine delay his baptism to near the end of his life, contrary to the example of NT.

      Delete
    2. Regarding presuppositions:
      I don't see the epistemic or authoritative or historic need for an infallible Church (whether Catholic, Orthodox etc.) to affirm and ground Scriptural authority (its necessity, sufficiency, and sufficient clarity). [[BTW, I'm a continuationist not a cessationist, so my affirmation of Scripture's sufficiency doesn't deny the reality and usefulness of private revelations]]

      Steve argue: "you Catholics youse your private judgment to conclude that the Catholic Church is true!"

      This doesn't suffer from the tu quoque because we affirm "private judgment" in some sense and deny it in another. Depending on the definition. Instead, when we Protestants say that to Catholics, we're pointing out an internal inconsistency on the part of Catholics.

      when I explain that truthfulness of Catholicism is a presupposition

      If Catholicism contradicts itself and Scripture, then it can't be true. Why would it need to be a presupposition? To me, it seems to fail Occam's Razor/parsimony. Especially since when it's coupled with Scripture, it makes Scripture look bad. Outsiders will impute and conjoin to Scripture the errors and sins of Catholicism. Also, history contradicts Catholicism as writers like William Webster have pointed out [cf. his lecture series Roman Catholic Tradition: It's Roots and Evolution HERE].

      Therefore, if a Protestant claims that I just use my private judgment to establish truthfulness of Catholicism, logically he opens way for Muslim or atheist to claim the same about you belief in inspiration of the Bible

      Evangelical presuppositionalists aren't against investigating the historical, textual, patristic, theological, logical, philosophical, scientific (etc.) evidence.

      I would therefore engage in historical apologetics.....But I would not talk endlessly about facts and more facts without ever challenging the non-believer's philosophy of fact. - Van Til [The Defense of the Faith p. 199]

      If you recall, in Bahnsen's debate with Stein, Bahnsen said that Christianity is not just presupposed, but it's also evidenced in the world.

      Thus, authority of the Bible (and of everything) is reduced to private judgment.

      That doesn't follow at all. Especially since there is no neutral ground. That's only true if there is neutral ground, or if there were a presuppositionless position.

      This specific Protestant argument against Catholicism proves too much.

      How?

      In other words, you cannot argue (like Steve does) that belief in truthfulness of Catholicism is just a matter of private judgment without conceding that belief in truthfulness of the Bible is likewise just a matter of private judgment. The reality is that both are fundamental presuppositions and must be treated as such, because the Magisterium and the Bible are final authorities which are nut subject to further verification.

      These are just assertions without argumentation or evidence. In fact, joining Scripture and the Catholic Church as together being a united authority would undermine the case for Scripture.

      Delete