tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post1266149220295873983..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Seeds Of The ReformationRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25964032790843516272023-02-05T07:06:04.873-05:002023-02-05T07:06:04.873-05:00Here's a collection of resources on the eviden...<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-history-of-belief-in-justification.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a collection of resources on the evidence for belief in justification apart from baptism before the Reformation. The post includes links to material on Polycarp, Aristides, and the Odes Of Solomon, among other sources.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-14217385119283263952022-10-23T06:49:36.147-04:002022-10-23T06:49:36.147-04:00I've written about justification apart from ba...I've written about <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/10/justification-apart-from-baptism-in.html" rel="nofollow">justification apart from baptism in Ignatius</a>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55648294841239494122022-10-14T05:39:23.235-04:002022-10-14T05:39:23.235-04:00I've written about belief in justification thr...I've written about <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/10/justification-apart-from-baptism-among.html" rel="nofollow">belief in justification through faith alone, including specification about justification apart from baptism, among the pre-Reformation Lollards</a>.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56076085042337910312022-09-16T19:12:05.949-04:002022-09-16T19:12:05.949-04:00Here's more about justification in the Epistle...<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/09/justification-through-faith-alone-in.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> more about justification in the Epistle To Diognetus.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-79391819505677321302022-04-11T08:25:48.639-04:002022-04-11T08:25:48.639-04:00Romans 4:5 says that God justifies an ungodly man ...Romans 4:5 says that God justifies an ungodly man who does not work. Roman Catholicism says God justifies a godly man who works. Read Roman Catholic theology believe the opposite arrive at biblical. The reformers saw antichrist in a purported church of human achievement. The RC saw antichrist is divine accomplishment, the gospel. Roman's 1:16 says the gospel alone, it is the power for salvation to all who believe it. Romans 10:9,10 says the immediate result of confessing and believing is righteousness and salvation. Improverhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11640178132826037659noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84312823853586598582022-04-11T04:49:09.810-04:002022-04-11T04:49:09.810-04:00In a post here, I've expanded on the evidence ...In a post <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2022/04/belief-in-justification-apart-from.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, I've expanded on the evidence for belief in justification apart from baptism at the time of Tertullian.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48696017584985343592018-07-08T22:07:52.441-04:002018-07-08T22:07:52.441-04:00It is simple. Looking unto Jesus the author and fi...It is simple. Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of [our] faith; Heb 12:2 or Jonah 2:9, Salvation is of the Lord.TommyKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13936478497234149842noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-46583058239629082002015-09-08T04:49:11.854-04:002015-09-08T04:49:11.854-04:00Here's a post I've written on sola fide in...<a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/09/faith-alone-in-hilary-of-poitiers.html" rel="nofollow">Here's</a> a post I've written on sola fide in Hilary of Poitiers.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-45939722455993982002015-08-28T18:01:26.316-04:002015-08-28T18:01:26.316-04:00Instead, in Scripture it is on Christ's accoun...Instead, in Scripture it is on Christ's account, not because he is practically good enough, that one is justified by faith, accepted in the Beloved and seated with Christ, (Eph. 1:6. 2:6) and has direct access now to God in prayer, (Heb. 10:19) and will be with the Lord at death or His return. With the only postmortem (or post-resurrection) suffering by believers is that of the judgment seat of Christ due to the loss of rewards and the Lord's disapproval, which one is saved despite of, and which does not occur until the Lord's return. (1Cor. 4:5; 2Tim. 4:1,8; Rev.11:18; Mt. 25:31-46; 1Pt. 1:7; 5:4)<br /><br />James teaches a faith which does not effect obedience is not salvific, and faith can be equated with works as it is faith in action, and it justifies one as a being a believer, but Catholicism equates the effect of justifying faith with being the actual cause of.<br /><br />Man could not and would not believe on the Lord Jesus or follow Him unless God gave him life, and breath, and all good things he has, (Acts 17:25) and convicted him, (Jn. 16:8) drew him, (Jn. 6:44; 12:32) opened his heart, (Acts 16:14) and granted repentance (Acts 11:18) and gave faith, (Eph. 2:8,9) and then worked in him both to will and to do of His good pleasure the works He commands them to do. (Phil. 2:13; Eph. 2:10)<br /><br />Thus man owes to God all things, and while he is guilty and rightly damned for resisting God contrary to the level of grace given him, (Prov. 1:20-31; Lk. 10:13; 12:48; Rv. 20:11-15) man can not claim he actually deserves anything, and God does not owe him anything but damnation, except that under grace — which denotes unmerited favor — God has chosen to reward faith, (Heb. 10:35) in recognition of its effects.<br /><br />Which means that God justifies man without the merit of any works, which is what Romans 4:1-7ff teaches, with “works of the law” including all systems of justification by merit of works, “for, if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.” (Galatians 3:21)<br /><br />Thus the penitent publican and the contrite criminal, both of whom abased themselves as damned and destitute sinner and cast all their faith upon the mercy of God (which ultimately is Christ), were justified, and as such could go directly to be with the Lord at death, even before they did any manifest works of faith. But works justify one as being a believer, and fit to be rewarded under grace for such, (Mt. 25:30-40; Rv. 3:4) though only because God has decided to reward man for what God Himself is actually to be credited for. <br /><br />Statement such as Trent's Canon 32 fosters RC faith in their own goodness and works for salvation, which shortened, teaches, "If anyone says that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God does not truly merit eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself, let him be anathema." <br /><br />With such emphasis on merit as if it was the actual cause of justification due to being good enough, no wonder RCs say such things as,<br /><br />I feel when my numbers up I will appoach a large table and St.Peter will be there with an enormous scale of justice by his side. We will see our life in a movie...the things that we did for the benefit of others will be for the plus side of the scale..the other stuff,,not so good will..well, be on the negative side..and so its a very interesting job Pete has. I wonder if he pushes a button for the elevator down for the losers...and what .sideways for those heading for purgatory..the half way house....lets wait and see.... — http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=4098202&postcount=2 PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85732247038742247362015-08-28T17:58:10.459-04:002015-08-28T17:58:10.459-04:00Actually Catholics believe the so-called "goo...Actually Catholics believe the so-called "good thief" was saved by becoming good enough to be with the Lord, since perfection of character/no uncleanness/attachment to sin is required to see God ("we will go to Purgatory first, and then to Heaven after we are purged of all selfishness and bad habits and character faults." Peter Kreeft, Because God Is Real: Sixteen Questions, One Answer, p. 224), which premise begets purgatory.<br /><br />Which state is what baptism (and thus Bap. Of Desire) is believed to render one, so that "If one were to die immediately after Baptism, he would go straight to Heaven (assuming one presents no obstacles). - https://www.fisheaters.com/baptism2.html; https://ourladyporingland.wordpress.com/sacraments/baptism/<br /><br />(Yet due to a remaining sinful nature which cannot be made subject to God, baptism does not remove all character defects, with attachment to sin, making one perfect in character, for which purgatory is said to be needed for.)<br /><br />Thus one must have already attained to the condition if, like the contrite criminal in Lk. 23, one went directly to be with the Lord. Which is what Scripture consistently says wherever it manifestly speaks of the afterlife: (Lk. 23:43 [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) Note in the latter case all believers were assured that if the Lord returned, which they expected in their lifetime, so would they “ever be with the Lord.” (1Thes. 4:17) though they were still undergoing growth in grace, as was Paul. (Phil. 3:10f) <br /><br /> Thus one begins his journey in the Catholic salvation system with becoming good enough to be with God via sprinkling=-regeneration=infused charity=sanctification= justification (as if Abraham became born again when God counted his faith for righteousness in Gn. 15:6, or the penitent publican in Lk. 18 or the contrite criminal in Lk. 23).<br /><br />And with practical sanctification as the cause for justification and perfection of character (nothing unclean) necessary to be with God, thus the salvation process usually culminates with the baptized who dies in grace suffering "purifying torments" commencing at death in order to enter Heaven. <br />PeaceByJesushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08754948549904895669noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-18317037858778106802015-08-25T04:15:19.029-04:002015-08-25T04:15:19.029-04:00I recently came across the following rendering of ...I recently came across the following rendering of chapter 32 of First Clement. This is Maxwell Staniforth's translation, edited by Andrew Louth. Notice that Staniforth expresses Clement of Rome's sentiments by adding the qualifier "alone" to faith:<br /><br />"Similarly we also, who by His will have been called in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves or our own wisdom or understanding or godliness, nor by such deeds as we have done in holiness of heart, but by that faith through which alone Almighty God has justified all men since the beginning of time." (Early Christian Writings [New York, New York: Penguin Books, 1987], 36)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-31354156243422999492013-08-21T06:17:55.956-04:002013-08-21T06:17:55.956-04:00Midas,
Love isn't the same as works of love. ...Midas,<br /><br />Love isn't the same as works of love. I see no reason to deny that faith involves love, much as it involves repentance and other characteristics.<br /><br />As the Lord's Prayer illustrates, believers are forgiven in more than one sense. We're justified, yet we daily ask for forgiveness. We aren't daily losing our justification. Rather, there are disruptions in our relationship with God that require restoration. We're forgiven in order to enter God's family (justification), then we're forgiven within the family on a regular basis in order to restore full fellowship (as illustrated in the Lord's Prayer). Notice that Clement quotes more of Psalm 32 than Paul did. Clement goes on to quote what David said about an absence of guile in the individual's mouth. Just before that quotation, Clement had referred to walking in the commandments. He's addressing growth in the Christian life, not how to attain justification. The two are related, but not identical.<br /><br />Keep in mind, too, that the ancient Christians often cited scripture in what we might call a typological sense. A passage about David will be applied to Jesus, for example. Similarly, a passage on forgiveness might be applied to justification in one context and sanctification in another context. Two authors might use the same text in significantly different ways, yet agree on the larger issues involved. Even a single author might use the same text in two significantly different ways.<br /><br />If you look at the surrounding context in First Clement, it looks as though he wanted to both warn unbelievers about their need for the first type of forgiveness and encourage believers to pursue the second type. There is discussion of God's love and his work in bringing about the first type of forgiveness, but there's also encouragement for Christians to work toward the second.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-47981663436126826852013-08-21T00:27:18.914-04:002013-08-21T00:27:18.914-04:00Thanks for the great response, Jason. I have a fol...Thanks for the great response, Jason. I have a follow-up question similar to this, if that's okay. According to one translation, Chapter 50 of 1 Clement says:<br /><br />"Ye see, beloved, how great and wonderful a thing is love, and that there is no declaring its perfection. Who is fit to be found in it, except such as God has vouchsafed to render so? Let us pray, therefore, and implore of His mercy, that we may live blameless in love, free from all human partialities for one above another. All the generations from Adam even to this day have passed away; but those who, through the grace of God, have been made perfect in love, now possess a place among the godly, and shall be made manifest at the revelation of the kingdom of Christ. For it is written, "Enter into thy secret chambers for a little time, until my wrath and fury pass away; and I will remember a propitious day, and will raise you up out of your graves." Blessed are we, beloved, if we keep the commandments of God in the harmony of love; that so through love our sins may be forgiven us. For it is written, "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will not impute to him, and in whose mouth there is no guile." This blessedness comes upon those who have been chosen by God through Jesus Christ our Lord; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."<br /><br />It seems that two things are of importance here. First, Clement, like Paul in Romans 4 when speaking about justification, quotes Psalm 32, but, unlike Paul, seems to apply it to love and not faith, since he says "so through love our sins may be forgiven us." This does not necessarily mean that Clement denies what he said about faith in Chapter 32, but, it appears that Clement would adopting a Roman Catholic view of faith, which must be informed by love in order to be saving. I know that TurretinFan says that the love being mentioned here is God's love and not ours, but I don't think that fits in with the immediately preceding context about our keeping the commandments in the harmony of love, which presumably is referring to our love. However, if love is part of what makes up saving faith, then Sola Fide is false. What do you think about this passage and its implications for the doctrine?Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84327883817107932842013-08-07T14:28:20.526-04:002013-08-07T14:28:20.526-04:00(continued from above)
It's also possible, th...(continued from above)<br /><br />It's also possible, though less likely, that the "life in immortality" in chapter 35 is referring to the quality of eternal life rather than the life itself. John 10:10 and 1 Timothy 6:19, for example, suggest that people can have different degrees of life or degrees of possessing it. Similarly, all of the other items that Clement lists just after mentioning life in immortality are items that can be possessed in degrees. What he would be addressing, then, is increasing the quality of eternal life, not whether a person is justified. However, I think the interpretation described in my previous paragraph is more likely. Though Biblical passages like John 10 and 1 Timothy 6 refer to degrees of life, it's more common to refer to people either having or not having life, without regard for degrees. Clement could be referring to the less common notion of degrees of life, but he probably isn't.<br /><br />Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that he did intend to refer to attaining eternal life through works in some sense in chapter 35. The question would remain, how do we best reconcile such a comment with what Clement said in chapters 32-33? Making sections 32-33 align with justification through works is more difficult than aligning section 35 with sola fide. (See my discussion in my original post about some of the problems with trying to reconcile chapters 32-33 with justification through works.) Even if we assume that Clement is referring to some form of attaining eternal life through works in chapter 35, it could be taken in the sense of a traditional Protestant understanding of James 2. Works are the fruit of genuine faith. In that sense, in order to emphasize the point that faith has to be genuine in order to be justificatory, it could be said that we work for eternal life. Perseverance is a necessary fruit of justifying faith. It is a fruit, however, rather than a root.<br /><br />But I don't think what I just outlined needs to be applied to First Clement 35. Rather, I think my first paragraph about that chapter is a sufficient explanation. What I'm getting at in my paragraph just above this one is that my view of First Clement as a whole wouldn't necessarily be overturned if I'm wrong about chapter 35.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-85724747294142344332013-08-07T14:27:42.269-04:002013-08-07T14:27:42.269-04:00Midas,
Your comments are relevant to some of my p...Midas,<br /><br />Your comments are relevant to some of my points about First Clement, but not others. For the benefit of the readers, I want to outline what's at stake here and what isn't.<br /><br />You haven't directly argued against my interpretation of sections 32-33 of the document. Rather, you've appealed to a potential indirect undermining of my interpretation from other parts of First Clement. You haven't explained how you'd reconcile those other sections to the ones I've cited. I'll explain how I reconcile my view of First Clement with the chapters you've brought up. But it should be noted that anybody adopting the view you're suggesting from chapters 34-35 would need to explain other portions of the document, like sections 32-33. The issue is how to make the most sense of the evidence as a whole. Even if a view other than mine would make more sense of chapters 34-35 in isolation, my view could make more sense of the entirety of the evidence. And some of my points, such as what I said about baptism, are unaffected by the issues you've raised.<br /><br />As I mentioned in my original post in this thread, I don't think Clement was an antinomian. And even if his view was closer to, say, Methodism than my position or the positions of some other Evangelicals, Clement's view would still fall under the broad category of faith alone that I was addressing. You might want to review what I explained about the context of my post in the opening paragraphs.<br /><br />I don't know what you have in mind with regard to chapter 34. Belief that true faith results in works and belief in heavenly rewards would explain the passage, and both notions are consistent with many concepts of faith alone, including my own.<br /><br />Concerning chapter 35, notice that the passage begins with references to multiple series of gifts to be obtained. He says that some gifts are already understood, whereas others have been promised for a future life in heaven that we don't yet fully understand. He then discusses how to obtain what's promised, apparently referring to the latter category of gifts (the ones not yet fully comprehended or possessed). I see no way to show that eternal life is included among the gifts he's telling his readers how to obtain. Let's assume that it is included, though. The fact would remain that he's discussing how to attain a series of gifts, not just one. I see no way to demonstrate that he had the one gift of eternal life in mind when he referred to attaining gifts through works, nor do I see any way to demonstrate that what he said about how to attain these things must be equally applicable to each gift mentioned. Since he's addressing a series of gifts, the means of attaining them can have different levels of applicability to different gifts. The passage is ambiguous with regard to the dispute over justification that we're discussing. Given what Clement says elsewhere about that issue, such as in sections 32-33, it's doubtful that he intended some form of justification through works in section 35.<br /><br />(continued below)Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-443937698776280232013-08-05T20:34:48.690-04:002013-08-05T20:34:48.690-04:00I'm not sure if Clement can be said to underst...I'm not sure if Clement can be said to understand justification in the same way that you and I do (though his view of it is certainly inconsistent with Rome's). In Chapter 34 of his letter, he writes:<br /><br />"The good servant receives the bread of his labour with confidence; the lazy and slothful cannot look his employer in the face. It is requisite, therefore, that we be prompt in the practice of well-doing; for of Him are all things. And thus He forewarns us: "Behold, the Lord [cometh], and His reward is before His face, to render to every man according to his work." He exhorts us, therefore, with our whole heart to attend to this, that we be not lazy or slothful in any good work. Let our boasting and our confidence be in Him. Let us submit ourselves to His will."<br /><br />and, in Chapter 35,<br /><br />"How blessed and wonderful, beloved, are the gifts of God! Life in immortality, splendour in righteousness, truth in perfect confidence, faith in assurance, self-control in holiness! And all these fall under the cognizance of our understandings [now]; what then shall those things be which are prepared for such as wait for Him? The Creator and Father of all worlds, the Most Holy, alone knows their amount and their beauty. Let us therefore earnestly strive to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts. But how, beloved, shall this be done? If our understanding be fixed by faith rewards God; if we earnestly seek the things which are pleasing and acceptable to Him; if we do the things which are in harmony with His blameless will; and if we follow the way of truth, casting away from us all unrighteousness and iniquity, along with all covetousness, strife, evil practices, deceit, whispering, and evil-speaking, all hatred of God, pride and haughtiness, vainglory and ambition."<br /><br />In both of these passages, Clement seems to suggest an eschatalogical judgment based upon one's works. In Chapter 34, the reward of eternal life is likened to the bread of the good servant's labor, which suggests that the good servant's own merits enter the picture. Similarly, Chapter 35 has Clement offering a list of things necessary for being saved. It seems that this list is causally connected to salvation too since Clement offers them in response to the question "[H]ow shall this [earnestly striving to be found in the number of those who wait for Him, in order that we may share in His promised gifts] be done?"<br /><br />Given this prima facie problem, do you think that there is a plausible way of reconciling Clement's words in Chapter 32 with those in Chapter 34 and 35? Thanks.Midashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16116187071955572970noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-84697764965082603602009-12-30T05:36:26.310-05:002009-12-30T05:36:26.310-05:00Beth B wrote:
"If we are to discuss the seed...Beth B wrote:<br /><br /><b><i>"If we are to discuss the seeds of reformation, we must also discuss the philosophical presuppositions that led to the hermeneutic of the 'solas.' Why is it that my Reformed brothers and sisters do not discuss the nominalism that underlies their doctrine of imputed righteousness?"</i></b> <br /><br />This thread is a response to some claims a Catholic made about the history of justification through faith alone. It's not a thread about the history of every concept relevant to Protestant beliefs about justification.<br /><br />Justification through faith alone and imputed righteousness are related issues, but are distinct. A person can believe in the former without believing in the latter. (I believe in both.) And different people believe in the concepts for different reasons. A modern Christian who thinks the Bible teaches imputed righteousness can believe in the concept for that reason, even if he doesn't know much about nominalism or rejects it.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-51028560244177318742009-12-29T00:29:51.028-05:002009-12-29T00:29:51.028-05:00If we are to discuss the seeds of reformation, we ...If we are to discuss the seeds of reformation, we must also discuss the philosophical presuppositions that led to the hermeneutic of the "solas." <br /><br />Why is it that my Reformed brothers and sisters do not discuss the nominalism that underlies their doctrine of imputed righteousness? I would love to hear more about this from their point of view. <br /><br />It seems to me that the great hermeneutical divide between Catholics and Protestants centers on whether we are able to eventually <i>participate</i> in the life of the Triune God(a la realism) or whether we are able to do so only indirectly, by imputation (a la nominalism).Beth Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00080711997032932991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75116551822875588482009-12-14T08:32:53.046-05:002009-12-14T08:32:53.046-05:00(Michael Horton also writes about this in more det...(Michael Horton also writes about this in more detail in "Covenant and Salvation).<br /><br />It should be noted, too, that Aquinas made other errors, and incorporated them into his theology. He believed that “Pseudo-Dionysius,” a fifth century neo-Platonist, was actually “Dionysius the Areopagite” from Acts 20. As well, he accepted many of the forgeries of the middle ages as if they were genuine items.<br /><br />I’d like to make an appeal to Matt, Sean, and the other Catholics who might show up at this point: Are you entirely comfortable knowing that Catholic theology is tainted by such things as this: That actual starting points and presuppositions that have their roots not in God’s word, but in Aristotle’s understanding of being – Aristotle who had no conception of the God of the Bible – consider what you are embracing into the heart of your salvation.<br /><br />Look at this stuff and see it for what it is; turn away from the Catholicism in which, as Calvin has put it, “satan has polluted everything that God has appointed for our salvation.” (Institutes 4.1.1.)John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-53488992673223583992009-12-14T08:31:42.089-05:002009-12-14T08:31:42.089-05:00"At the radix of the Roman Catholic understan..."At the radix of the Roman Catholic understanding of justification is not simply the teaching of the early church, but ultimately, and once again, its conception of man's original created state. Aquinas, for example, begins his discussion on the being and existence of God, not in terms of what Scripture has revealed concerning God, but in terms of ontology, particularly Aristotelian ontology (Summa, Ia IIae q.113a.8.) While the Aristotelian categories as a point of contact with the unbeliever is one issue, debatable at that, the use of Aristotelian ontology as the starting point for unpacking God's being and attributes and one's anthropology is a beast of an entirely different stripe. Recall from the chapter on prolegomena that Francis Turretin rejected Aquinas's ontologically framed discussion of the being and attributes of God and instead opted for the twin foci of covenant and Christology as the means by which God has revealed himself ... <br /><br />"Turretin's point is that theology is not revealed to us in terms of ontology but in the Word of God, which comes to us through Christ and covenant. Turretin is not alone in this criticism." (Fesko 372-373).<br /><br />Further down, Fesko gives some ramifications of this.<br /><br />"Van-Til notes in this regard, 'Romanism makes the effort to attach a Christian faith principle to a non-Christian principle of reason. The result is a compromise with the non-Christian principle f the autonomous man.' Inherent in Aquinas's understanding of man's original state, namely the pristine condition of his reason both before and after the fall, is reliance upon Aristotle. For the historic Reformed faith, however, there are only two kinds of people in the world, covenant-breakers and covenant-keepers. Van Til explains that covenant-keepers make man in God's image, whereas covenant-breakers make God in man's image.<br /><br />"According to Roman Catholic thelogy, then, one does not find man in covenant confronted with the revelation of God, and bound either to obey or disobey. It was Calvin, for example, who taught that man cannot know himself without knowing himself as a creature of God. Instead, Aquinas and Roman Catholic theology begin first with the concept of being and then only later introduce the Creator-creature distinction."<br /><br />Fesko continues with several more citations from Van Til, to the effect that Catholic theology "virtually asserts that the faith principle (in the Word) must be adjusted to the principle of reason that is already at work..." As well, "the meaning of a finished incarnation as an individual fact in history could never be made reasonable. The incarnation is a process continued in the church as the whole human personality is in the process of divinization....There cannot be one finished fact in history by virtue of which men are made righteous and holy in principle."<br /><br />As a practical out-working then, my understanding is that there are several key differences which don't get mentioned:<br /><br />"Grace" actually means different things when Catholics and Protestants talk about it. <br /><br />This is reflected from the very beginning; in the Protestant schema, man was "good" when God created him. So Christ's sacrifice, for Protestants, brings man through forensic justification, a declarative act of God, restoring man back to the "very good" that he had "in the beginning."<br /><br />In the Catholic scheme, man as created wasn't yet "good enough." He was merely neutral. There was a "super-added Grace" that gave him a kind of supernatural character that enabled him to "fellowship with God." <br /><br />So the sacramental treadmill -- beginning with an "infusion" of grace (a little squirt of this good oil that is yours to maintain by staying in "a state of grace") which does "make you righteous," but then it must be maintained through life -- being a "good Catholic," it can be "added to" (through the "increase of merit") -- this is required not by God in the Word, but by the Aristotelian/Thomist necessity to maintain human reason as a principle above and controlling God's Word.John Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-33975489264075190892009-12-14T08:30:25.113-05:002009-12-14T08:30:25.113-05:00Hi Jason,
Of course, the "nature" of j...Hi Jason, <br /><br />Of course, the "nature" of justification is what McGrath is talking about. For Luther and Calvin, it was precisely this "forensic" nature, which Paul wrote about. <br /><br />And there is no question that the biblical language is forensic. And as has been noted, certain Roman Catholics who are willing to be honest with the Scriptural record have admitted that, yes, "justification" in both Old and New Testaments is a forensic act, a legal declaration by God. <br /><br />Fesko writes, "While individual Roman Catholic theologians have acknowledged the forensic nature of justification and hence the foundational nature of imputation, it is the magisterium that must acknowledge the doctrine. The whole debate, however, over the question of imputed versus infused righteousness is not one that will be solved only by exegeting the relevant NT texts (e.g., Romans 4:1-8, 5:12-19, 1 Cor 15:20-28, 2 Cor 5:20-21). The question of Adam's original state in the initial creation must also figure in the debate.<br /><br />"It seems as though much of the debate over infused versus imputed righteousness hinges upon the presuppositions of each party. The typical Reformed understanding is that Adam was created upright, or righteous, and that God justified, or declared righteous, the initial creation as well as man in his declaration that everything was "very good" (Gen 1:31). We see the Westminster Larger Catechism echo this point when it states that God created man in "righteousness, and holiness, having the law of God written in their hearts, and the power to fulfill it" (q.17). By way of contrast, the typical Roman Catholic understanding of Adam's original state holds to the necessity of infused righteousness. Roman Catholic theologians typically hold to the idea of the "donum supperadditum" ("super-added gift"). Medieval Roman Catholic Theologians, for example, argue that the donum superadditum was a part of the original constitution of man, that it represented his original capacity for righteousness. We see, then, from the outset, that man in his unfallen state required infused righeousness in the form of the donum superadditum. If man requires infused righteousness in the prefall state, then he would most assuredly require it in his sin-fallen but redeemed state. (This is from Aquinas, Summa, Ia q. 95). The original state of man, then, is an issue that must feature in any dialogues over the question of imputation." (Fesko, "Justification," 371-372).<br /><br />Fesko continues:<br /><br />"We have seen throughout this study that the RCC typically confuses the categories of justification and sanctification. This confusion is due to several factors, such as Augustine's initial formulation of justification, namely that it included both the declarative and transformative, a formulation which was later reiterated in the council of Trent, as we saw above. Once again, the issue does not hinge solely upon the definition of categories of systematic theology and terms in the NT. Yes, some Roman Catholic theologians have acknowledged that when Paul uses the "dikai-"word group that he has its forensic or declarative meaning in mind. Hence justification cannot be a transformative process; it cannot include sanctification but is a once-for-all declaration of the sinner's righteousness. However, though individual theologians may affirm this important point, the magisterium will not do so until it exposes one of its fundamental presuppositions as unbiblical.<br /><br />To be continuedJohn Bugayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17728044301053738095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-55122424164826807562009-12-14T08:25:17.488-05:002009-12-14T08:25:17.488-05:00Matt,
You may not have read any of the articles I...Matt,<br /><br />You may not have read any of the articles I linked regarding the Biblical evidence, since my post focuses on post-Biblical sources. But the articles I linked on the Biblical data do address issues like the ones you're raising.<br /><br />I realize that Catholicism makes exceptions for people like the thief on the cross. But that's not the normative means of justification in Catholicism.<br /><br />I also realize that Catholics acknowledge the involvement of God's grace. But if works are absent from Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:44-46, Galatians 3:2, and other relevant passages, then saying that the works are preceded by and accompanied by grace doesn't make sense. There are no works for grace to accompany in such passages. Or if Titus 3:5 and First Clement 32 exclude righteous and holy works, why would we conclude that only works that are in some manner deficient are being excluded? It would be possible to read those passages that way, but that wouldn't be the most reasonable way in which to read them.<br /><br />I cited scholars saying that <i>Protestant</i> views of justification are found in these pre-Reformation sources. They don't say that Catholic views that are somewhat similar to a Protestant view are there. Rather, they refer to Protestant views.<br /><br />And I included examples of advocates of some form of sola fide who were <i>opposed</i> by men like Origen, Augustine, and Bede. If you're going to suggest that men like Origen, Augustine, and Bede were Catholics, then why are we supposed to believe that the opponents they're responding to held the same Catholic view of justification? Why would two parties who held the same view be arguing with one another? Are you saying that you agree with the antinomians and other sources I cited advocating some form of sola fide? You agree with all of them? How can you agree with all of the sources involved when those sources didn't agree with each other?<br /><br />You write:<br /><br /><b><i>"So faith is the beginning middle and end of catholic soteriology."</i></b> <br /><br />No, the normative means of justification in Catholicism begins with baptism (and grace and faith, but my focus here is on the inclusion of works) and continues to involve works thereafter. Catholicism allows for sola fide in some exceptional cases, but that's not the norm. We see that in the Catechism Of The Catholic Church (1129, 1212-1213, 1215, 1227, 1254, 1257, 1263, 2010, etc.) and in the Council of Trent (<a href="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html" rel="nofollow">session 6, On Justification, canon 24</a>), for example.Jason Engwerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17031011335190895123noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-60768964655415246292009-12-13T23:46:16.536-05:002009-12-13T23:46:16.536-05:00Jason -- This is my first comment here so let me t...Jason -- This is my first comment here so let me thank you up front for your hospitality in hosting this discussion and welcoming comments from such as us Catholics. <br /><br />But I must say it seems you're barking up the wrong tree in describing something that we Catholics believe and teach quite clearly. <br /><br />We believe that the thief on the cross was saved apart from baptism or any other good works. His confession of faith in Jesus was quite enough for Jesus to welcome him into the kingdom.<br /><br />Now the life of the average Christian will involve<br />much more than those final moments of the thiefs life, but the basis onwhich we believe we will be received into heaven as is precisely the same as the thief -- the undeserved mercy of god won for us by the sacrifice of Christ.<br /><br />Any works we do in this life that have any merit only have merit because of jesus' work. We hope to hear "well done my good and faithful servant" not because we were so good but because Jesus' work made it possible for us to be accepted by god. <br /><br />So faith is the beginning middle and end of catholic soteriology. It's no surprise at all that you can find this in the fathers.Matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354061248410724936noreply@blogger.com