Called to an Unfalsifiable Refuge

My conversation with Bryan Cross on the topic of Torrance's analysis of Clement of Rome (try saying that one three times fast!) seems to have come to an impasse. I've posted the following over there; I believe every one of my comments has been getting through over there.

* * *

Bryan, it seems as if we’ve come to an impasse here, as you have retreated (as Mike did above) into an unfalsifiable refuge. You can’t allow Clement to speak for himself. You can’t allow an analysis by Torrance to say what Clement was saying.

But Paul said, “I am not out of my mind, most excellent Festus, but I utter words of sober truth. For the king knows about these matters, and I speak to him also with confidence, since I am persuaded that none of these things escape his notice; for this has not been done in a corner (Acts 26:26).”

Paul did not hide behind an unfalsifiable refuge. Paul preached a Christ and a Christianity that the whole world could see.

It sounds very pretty and even obedient to say that you are “reading Scripture through the Fathers”, but assuming that Torrance is correct in his analysis (and if Torrance is wrong on any specific point, other than his presupposition, I am open to seeing just where his analysis is flawed), here we have one of the “Fathers”, evidently making “Tradition”, in a usage which very much seems to be somewhat different from the New Testament concept of grace.

[It’s funny, but when David King’s work came out, “Holy Scripture, the Ground and Pillar of our Faith” – that title citing Irenaeus, by the way], no Roman Catholic had any really substantive responses to him. The only thing that all the Catholics were saying around the echo chamber in those days was “it wasn’t peer reviewed” And that was a good enough reason to reject it. Now, here you are, telling me, in a non-peer-reviewed way, what Irenaeus meant (up above), and what Clement means here, and the “peer-reviewed” Torrance is dismissed because he doesn’t hold to the correct paradigm. It’s definitely ironic.]

For me, as a Roman Catholic who was attending Mass weekly, attending Opus Dei “evenings of recollection”, in fact, wanting to *do* all the right things, it was this type of thing that sorely turned me off. There are just too many places where the unverifiable had become dogma -- from the supposed “perpetual virginity” of Mary (contra such words as “adelphoi”) to the Immaculate Conception (sourced from a late second-century gnostic/fictional work) to the [in my opinion simply brazen] “Assumption of Mary” dogma (sourced from fifth century transitus literature) -- those were places where I began looking, but there were plenty more, and the weight of the momentum of my investigations on various topics has carried me through to where I am today.

I know that there is such a thing as “obedience of faith”, that you hold that “the Church that Christ founded” had “authority”, but there are just far, far too many things where one must “exercise obedience” and put aside good and sound analyses like the one done by Torrance. He is not one of those bitterly skeptical “critical scholars”. He was one of the truly helpful theologians.

At some point I just came to say “the Church” really isn’t wiser than I am. There are too many such incidents where one has to make excuses, to hide behind the “unfalsifiable refuge”, such as your quick rejection of “the assumption of solo scriptura” or “the Catholic Interpretive paradigm” -- you all just seem to me to be hiding behind things like that.

Whether you call it “solo” or “sola Scriptura”, God HAS spoken in the Scriptures. He HAS proposed what must be believed. In Micah 6, and similar verses, he even clarifies: “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God”, to cite just one example.

The type of “binding” that the Roman Catholic Church has done is just a travesty when you consider what God himself has said, in many words that are, yes, telegraphed to be perspicuous. “These things were not done in a corner”.

I’m not saying that no “ministerial teaching” is required. And I allow that the church in earliest times did exercise a “ministerial” teaching function.

But the whole authority structure that evolved out of that -- and yes, I mean “evolved” in the way that’s described by even Roman Catholic scholars such as Francis Sullivan and John Meier and others I’ve mentioned – Catholics in good standing whom you choose to reject – the first and second century church did not have the kind of “divine authority” that you all here attribute to it.

I very much appreciate what the Apostles went through. They shaped the world around them by preaching the Gospel to them – a Gospel of things that could be verified by independent investigation. And I appreciate the struggles and the persecutions that the church went through in the second and third centuries. But these were just men - guided by the Spirit, yes, but in no way infallible. They erred, too, in some very important things, and over the centuries, Rome just seemingly ossified those errors under the cover of “infallibility” and for the sake of protecting its own perceived authority.

And on the other side of this, no, I do not believe Roman Catholics are damned. As I continue to think through the implications of my position, I think it’s fair to say that Roman CatholicISM retains many Christian features, which are obscured, first of all, by the supposed (yes, supposed) authority of the present Roman Catholic hierarchy. But what I see is not an infallible body, protected [in some supposed “infallibility”] by Christ, but a very large body of men simply play-acting at authority, who are doing real harm, not only to the cause of Christianity by their posturing at authority, but harm to many thousands of sex-abuse victims.

Have you all seen just how swiftly the Penn State Board of Trustees has been acting to simply uncover the whole story about the Sandusky sex abuse, and Paterno’s efforts to hide it? They can’t rid themselves of Paterno fast enough. And yet, we are talking about this body of bishops and their motivations to hide the abusers, in a completely opposite response.

IMO, at best, Roman CatholicISM is one of many denominations -- a bad one that has gotten many things wrong. I do appreciate the spirituality of someone like my mother, who remains Roman Catholic. (My sister has since become a Baptist and my brother is one of those who just simply doesn’t go to church, even on Christmas and Easter.)

I’m glad to have had an opportunity to go through this long exercise here, just to see where you do and don’t draw the lines. And how you draw them.

If you all honestly want “the Reformation” to “meet Rome”, it seems to me that you need to do a lot better job of genuinely responding to objections, rather than just hiding behind your own presuppositions.

A clarification about this work on Torrance and 1 Clement

Just for the sake of clarification, with this series of posts on 1 Clement, I’m attempting to build the type of case that Cullmann talked about: the notion that, for one reason or another, writers in this era of 100-150 “lost something” that was very important for Christianity. In the case of Clement (and indeed, all the “Apostolic Fathers” writings that he discussed), the concept of grace, freely given, was lost.

And it took something like the “canonical core” that Kruger wrote about to help focus the minds and attentions of more orthodox later writers like Irenaeus and Tertullian on what the “apostolic teaching” really was. Prior to that, a reliance on the viva vox (and cultural considerations as well) had permitted these writers to lose track of such a vital concept.

This, too, may be why Augustine, the great searcher of the Scriptures that he was, was able to come up with his own “doctrine of grace” – something that was (to borrow from Warfield) confused and obscured by the bright glory [I say this sarcastically] of the nearby Church of Rome – fresh with infusions of cash from emperor-converts, and to be sure, muddled a bit with notions of some Roman-ish “sacramental” ideas already in place. But also, to be sure, a foundation for later understandings by Luther and Calvin and the other Reformers.

T.F. Torrance on 1 Clement and the Doctrine of Grace (part 2)

Before getting into 1 Clement, I wanted to show a couple of usages from Titus where the Pauline (New Testament) concept of “grace”, especially the notion of how it relates to the notion of “good works”, is particularly clear:

Titus 2:11-14: For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people, training us to renounce ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in the present age, waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people for his own possession who are zealous for good works.

See how grace works here? It is the grace itself that “brings salvation”, “trains us”. Christ “gave himself” “to redeem us” and “to purify” us. It is God’s initiative that brings Christ in grace, and with Him, all these good things.

Later in that same letter:

Titus 3:3-6: For we ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another. But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, 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, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior…

Again, we were not worthy at all, at which time the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, and he saved us, according to his own mercy.

1 Clement, as we shall see, while using some Paul-like language, sees grace merely as an “opportunity for repentence”.

T.F. Torrance on 1 Clement and the Doctrine of Grace (part 1)

Referring to T.F. Torrance’s work, “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers”, I’ve posted two selections that trace the definitions of the word “grace” (χάρις in Greek, or “charis”) as used in different contexts:

1. χάρις in Classical and Hellenistic Greek usage, including Philo.

2. χάρις in Old Testament and New Testament usage.

This is the first of two follow-up comments on my comment #322 at Called to Communion, where I quoted T.F. Torrance’s summary of 1 Clement’s use of the word “grace” (χάρις in Greek, or “charis”):

Clement definitely thinks of charis as referring to a gift of God without which the Christian would not be able to attain to love or salvation. But there is little doubt that this is held along with the idea of merit before God; for grace is given to those who perform the commandments of God, and who are worthy. He may use the language of election and justification, but the essentially Greek idea of the unqualified freedom of choice is a natural axiom in his thoughts, and entails a doctrine of "works" as Paul would have said. In all His dealings with men, God is regarded as merciful; but the ground for the Salvation He gives is double: faith and ... [ellipses in original]. And so Wustmann is justified in saying of Clement’s theology: “Whoever does the will of God, him shall God bless...” Like the whole mass of Judaistic writers [following Philo’s usage], Clement thinks of God's mercy as directed only toward the pious; and if he uses the word χάρις, as in Philo, it carries with it the same principle (pgs. 54-55).

That’s Torrance’s conclusion about 1 Clement. Following that comment, I added, “That concept of being rewarded for being worthy before God [before God will give you grace] is not a concept Paul used; later writers would call that “Pelagian”. But here is “Pope” Clement, a Pelagian before Pelagius.”

Definitions of grace over time and in different contexts, part 1: The Greek Conceptions of Grace

In conjunction with some comments I’m going to make regarding T.F. Torrance’s “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers” (Wipf & Stock Publishers; 1996 Reprint edition), here, briefly, is the first of two broad categories of definitions of how the word and concept have been understood, “In Greek Culture”. Within this category, there are a number of different shades of meaning, observed at different times and within different bodies of literature. (“TDNT” is Kittel’s “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Company, Trans Geoffrey Bromily, © 1974, vol. IX).

THE GREEK CONCEPTION OF CHARIS

Definitions of grace over time and in different contexts, part 2: Biblical Conceptions of Grace

In conjunction with some comments I’m going to make regarding T.F. Torrance’s “The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers” (Wipf & Stock Publishers; 1996 Reprint edition), here, briefly, is the second of the two broad categories of definitions of how the word and concept have been understood, “Biblical Conceptions of Grace”. There are a number of different shades of meaning, observed at different times and within different bodies of literature. (“TDNT” is Kittel’s “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, Company, Trans Geoffrey Bromily, © 1974, vol. IX).

THE BIBLICAL CONCEPTION OF CHARIS

Grace in the New Testament

I bring this up because there is a struggle to come up with a definition of the word “grace” over at Green Baggins. The only word study on the word “Grace” that I’ve seen is the one that T. F. Torrance did in his The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 1996 reprint of his 1948 edition).

From the Introduction:

I. The Greek Conception of Charis

A. Charis in Classical Greek

B. Charis in Hellenistic Greek

C. Charis in Philo

II. The Biblical Conception of Grace

A. Grace in the Old Testament (aheb, hesed, and hen)

B. Grace in the New Testament

Of this he says:

In the New Testament charis (χάρις) becomes a terminus technicus. While other meanings are still current, there is a special Christian sense of the word coined under the impact of Revelation to convey something quite unique.

He divides “Grace in the New Testament” among three groups which he analyses: Grace in the Gospels, Grace in the Epistles of Paul, and Grace in the other New Testament writings. Of these, he summarizes, “there seems no doubt that the Pauline usage of charis became normative for the whole church”.

For Paul, it is always described as Ἡ χάρις τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ”. And of Paul’s usage, makes several points:

In Paul, there is no separation between the person and the work of Christ. He does not know Christ after the flesh, but Christ crucified and risen after the Spirit. Christ crucified and risen is God’s power and God’s grace-act among men. In the background there is always the thought that charis is the grace of God, but in the foreground it is the person of Christ, and the act of Christ that fill the focus of vision.

The simplest and the most profound expression of grace Paul gives is perhaps the following: δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Romans 3:24). It would be safe to say that Paul never speaks of grace, except as grounded in the self-giving of God in the person and death of Jesus, and in every instance it is the objective side of its content that predominates. There is no hint of any psychologising in his use of the word charis. ….

In its primary sense in St. Paul’s epistles grace has to do with the act of divine intervention rather than with our receiving of it. Charis is now the presupposition of all man’s relations with God and constitutive of the whole Christian life. Grace is the decisive deed [accomplished by God] which makes the ground of our approach to God an act and word of His in which He irrevocably committed. It means the establishing of something quite new among men, a new relation to God, not one in which the divine command forms the basis of our relations with God, but one in which the divine self-commitment invites us to approach Him on the grounds of love, because in Christ the divine will has been perfectly fulfilled on our behalf. Grace is a colossal deed that cuts away the ground from all our [“any other”] human religion, and establishes a new religion in the Gospel, so wonderful that men are utterly overwhelmed, and so radical that it entails a complete reversal of all previous attitudes and ideas. Such a reversal means that we cannot think our way in to the wisdom of God, which is, as Paul says, the Cross, because God has done a deed which makes our wisdom foolish and which interrupts us in our career.

“…Grace is the will of God to constitute man’s life afresh on a wholly new basis and in a renewed world, to set him free from sin and Satan; to endue him with the Spirit, to make him the possessor of a supernatural life. It is thus the presupposition of the whole Christian life, not one principle which (along with others) works within that life.”

There can be no doubt that Paul did think of the impact of grace upon men in terms of power, for “the Kingdom of God”, he said, “was not in word only, but in power”. The Gospel was not in word only, not a fiction, but in power and reality, creating its own results in righteousness and truth. … The Christian’s righteousness, wisdom, sanctification, and redemption are to be found in Christ Himself, and so Paul can speak of these as differentiations of charis even when they are manifest in the believer … Charis is never adjectival on the lips of Paul, but always dynamic.

... Grace means the primary and constitutive act in which out of free love God has intervened to set our life on a wholly new basis, but also means that through faith this may be actualized in flesh and blood because it has been actualized in Jesus Christ, who by the Cross and Resurrection becomes our salvation, our righteousness, and our wisdom. Thus any attempt to detach grace in a transferred sense from the actual embodiment of God’s grace in Jesus Christ is to misunderstand the meaning of the Pauline charis altogether.

Torrance notes here in a footnote that “To detach grace from the person of Christ and to think of it as acting impersonally upon man is inevitably to land in determinism. That was Augustine’s mistake.” The medieval Roman church, and thus the whole Roman Catholic church followed him in this mistake.

To sum up: Grace in the New Testament is the basic and most characteristic element of the Christian Gospel, It is the breaking into the world of the ineffable love of God in a deed of absolutely decisive significance which cuts across the whole of human life and sets it on a new basis. That is actualized in the person of Jesus Christ, with which grace is inseparably associated, and supremely exhibited on the Cross by which the believer is once and for all put right with God. This intervention of God in the world and its sin, out of sheer love, and His personal presence to men through Jesus Christ are held together in the one thought of grace.

“By the Cross the believer has been put in the right with God once for all—Christ is his righteousness. He is already in Christ what he will be—to that, no striving will add one iota.”