;)
Faith, Works, and Rewards
Posted by David Rogers in Bible & Theology
The recent visit of the Pope has got me thinking about the differences between Catholicism and Evangelicalism. For me, the watershed (or at least, one of them) is still the crucial doctrine of justification by faith alone. As we think about Christian unity and fellowship, it is important, in the light of Galatians 1:6-9, and what it says about “a different gospel—which is really no gospel at all,” for us to be clear on the essentials.
As I have thought about faith and works, and their relationship to salvation, I have struggled with the apparent conflict between the teaching of Paul and James. If we are honest, and have thought much about it at all, I think we all would admit to struggling with this very same thing.
For me, the following illustration has helped me come to terms with this apparent conflict. I would be interested to know if any of you fellow “theologians” out there think I am on target here or not…
Let’s suppose that this afternoon a man comes up to me and says, “David, if you get up right now, and run 10 miles, I will give you a million dollars.” Even though I am not a big runner, and it’s been several years since I have run more than 2 or 3 miles at a time, chances are, I won’t have to think about it 5 seconds before I am out of my seat, have my jogging clothes on, and am out there running.
That is, unless one of the following three circumstances exist:
Circumstance #1. I don’t believe the man offering me the million dollars really has a million dollars to give me.
Circumstance #2. Even though I am quite confident the man offering me the million dollars is capable of following through with his offer, I don’t believe he is telling me the truth; I think that he is probably just “pulling my leg.”
Circumstance #3. Even though I am quite confident the man offering me the million dollars is capable of following through with his offer, and I am convinced that he is totally sincere and truthful in his offer, I don’t think that I myself, no matter how much I might wish it were not so, will be able to run the 10 miles. Let’s suppose I am paraplegic. As much as I would like to run the 10 miles and receive the million dollars, I’m most likely not going to even attempt it. Because I would know, before I even began, that it would be entirely futile.
However, if none of these three circumstances exist, I am up and out the door before you could say “Jack Robinson.” Right?
The truth of the matter is that Jesus offers us a reward that is of far greater value than a million dollars. And, if I understand my Bible correctly, the reward Jesus offers for being consistently obedient to his commands, for doing “good works,” if you will, is comparatively greater than the reward for just making it to heaven, but “only as one escaping through the flames” (1 Cor. 3:15).
If we follow this illustration out and apply it to our Christian walk, the three possible circumstances that might get in the way of us carrying out what Jesus asks of us, in order to receive the reward He offers us, are all answered in one marvelous passage of the Word of God, Hebrews 13:20-21:
May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
Answer to Circumstance #1. The one who offers me the reward is “the God of peace…that great Shepherd of the sheep.” That is, He is the one who owns “the cattle on a thousand hills.” Beyond any shadow of a doubt, He has the wherewithal to follow through with the offer He has made.
Answer to Circumstance #2. The one who offers me the reward has done it “through the blood of the eternal covenant.” Is it possible, when He made me the offer, that He was lying, or just “pulling my leg”? No way!!! The offer He made cost him the life of his only-begotten Son. And, He sealed that offer by way of an “eternal covenant.”
Answer to Circumstance #3. For a lot of people, I think this is where they get tripped up. Somewhere, in our heart of hearts, we convince ourselves that the things Jesus commands us to do are just too difficult. Try as hard as we may, we know deep inside that we are only going to end up failing miserably. So, why even bother?
But this passage tells us two very wonderful truths.
First of all, God “equip(s) us with everything good for doing his will.” We may think that we are unable to do what He asks us to do. And, the truth is, in and of ourselves, we are unable. But, it doesn’t depend on our own ability. He is the one who equips us, who gives us the ability, as we set out to run the race, to make it to the finish line.
Next, not only does He equip us to run the race; He himself “work(s) in us what is pleasing to him.” That is, we may well be spiritual paraplegics. But the Holy Spirit energizes us, and picks us up, and actually runs the race in us and through us, as we respond by faith to the offer God has made.
Okay now, back to Paul and James, and faith and works. Whenever I fail to obey the commands of Jesus, whenever I fail to faithfully run the race set before me, why is it? Invariably, it is because, at the root, I do not have faith in the Word of God. Either I don’t believe God is able to give me what He has promised, I don’t believe He is really worthy of my trust, or I don’t believe that He will really give me the strength and ability to do the things He asks me to do. Or somehow, I convince myself that the reward He offers is not all that great, that the temporary pleasures of doing my own will here and now exceed the eternal benefits of doing what He wants me to do. In any case, the root issue is a basic lack of faith.
When we look at it from this perspective, it makes perfect sense to me that James might say that “a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone” (James 2:24) in the same Bible where Paul says “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law” (Rom. 3:28).
I am not sure what the Pope might have to say in regard to this. And, I am not exactly sure how it all fits into the argument about “forensic” and “progressive justification.” I am pretty sure, though, that “grace” is not a “substance” that we obtain by means of partaking in the “sacraments.”
What say ye?
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
;)
A good place to start is by realizing that Catholics and Protestants use the word justification quite differently. In Protestantism we view in a very forensic sense, that is, like in a court room. It is the beginning of our salvation when our present, past, and future sins (that last is debated among evangelicals) are forgiven and we move into a curious status that Luther called simul justus et pecatur–at once just and a sinner. After that we move into what we have traditionally called the stage of sanctification, where we cooperate with God’s grace and love and haltingly and in a very broken way, hopefully mature into wise and obedient Christians.
In Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy), the word justification is used in a transformational sense: to actually do the long hard work of teaching one to be just. In other words justification lasts from the moment of conversion until the moment of glorification (the resurrection of the righteous).
One can argue about which side better grasps the NT usage of the word justification. I find that the word us actually used in both ways in different passages. At times it is more forensic (court room declaration) and at other times it is more transformational and gradual.
If you believe that sanctification can occur without good works (which are a gift of God in themselves), then you probably do have a genuine and profound difference of doctrine with the Catholics. Otherwise I doubt your disagreement is fundamental.
Can somebody explain what James means when he says that faith without works is dead, and then asks if dead faith can save someone, and comments that we see a person is saved by what he does and NOT by faith alone? Does that mean something other than what it seems?
I know I can use apply that only to myself, but what does that say for the emphasis on “faith alone”? And why have I NEVER heard James 2:24 preached?
At least not that I can recall.
bob,
faith must result in good works or else it’s not a true faith. true faith…real faith… works. i believe that james was trying to say that simple, intellectual acknowledgement of the Lord Jesus was not true faith. that a person saying that they had faith that didnt lead to good works doesnt have real faith.
i believe that paul and james would agree perfectly….they were just looking at this issue from opposite sides of the same coin. paul was stressing that good works cant save you….james was stressing that real faith works…..or else it aint real faith.
and now, like all good orators, i leave you with a poem….
i do not work my soul to save
that work my Lord has done,
but i will work like any slave
for love of God’s dear Son.
david
Rome declares us outside of the one true church and I declare her outside of the one true Gospel.
David, I’m no “theologian” but I really like what you’ve put together here in this post. It goes hand in hand with the devotions I’m writing each day from Hebrews at Daily-Impact. Amazing how much I’ve written speaks to this subject you’ve broached. Your thoughts are simple, direct and clear. Great post! selahV
Hello Bob, I love that verse. It is a prodding in my soul. While I do not believe my works save me, I believe my works prove what is already going on in my life as a result of my faith in Jesus. For without a desire to follow Him in loving my neighbor as myself, by devoting my mind, heart, soul and body to Him, what faith have I got? Any? selahV
Abu,
Thank you for your stopping by and your insight. By the way, you have a great website! I particularly like the discussion concerning Islam. I scrolled through the article that compared Islam to Mormonism, and the discussion that followed. I wish we could get some lookers and seekers here.
Again, Thanks.
Rob
It’s too bad this post failed to generate further discussion. A haughty spirit or a condescending tone should never come across when dealing with subjects such as this one. If we truly love people then man we need to point them to the narrow path. When a soul realizes that Christ really did pay it all and indeed it is to Him all that they owe…then they’re off and running with good deeds and works. Unfortunately, my own lifestyle all too often fails to show this very fact.
“Faith alone” applies to me, while “show me your faith by your works” applies to you.
Simple.
Hi Rob, thank you for the compliment. If you have any questions about Islam you would like me to tackle please do let me know: winterlightning@safe-mail [d0t] com.
John Daly, the Roman Catholic understanding of what “the church” means and is is quite different than the more congregationalist model Baptists follow. The pope would have no problem regarding you as a genuine Christian indwelled by the Holy Spirit and bearing fruit for the Kingdom, though yes, he would say that theologically you belong to an extra-ecclesiastical community and not the Church. You seem not prepared to accord him the same grace.
With the measure you use you shall be measured my brother. (Or perhaps my defense of a Catholic means that I am outside of the Gospel as well?)
Abu,
I fully realize I shall be measured and as such, choose words very carefully. It is also why I focus on doctrine and not on people. For me it all boils down to two simple words: infused or imputed. How is grace acquired? How is a person justified?
I believe there is no way I can withstand God’s Wrath on the day of Judgement, I will burn to a crisp. I need the righteousness of One who has absorbed that wrath for me. That is the only “Treasury of Merit” I will ever need.
I do hope you’ll comment more on this site Abu, I appreciate the way you conduct your comments and I sense I can learn much.
>”I have struggled with the apparent conflict between the teaching of Paul and James.”
Since the Bible is inerrant and Truth can never contradict Truth, the fact that you have an apparent conflict between Paul and James indicates that one, or both, of your interpretations of the passages is in error.
Luther had the same conflict and his solution was to remove the Book of James from the Bible. That was a bit extreme. As all Truth is from and of God, God has surely provided a true interpretation of both Paul and James which do not conflict.
You should be careful as you’re questioning sola fide and a while ago a young Presbyterian pastor did just that and converted. You’ll find his comments about hallway through his coversion story.
>” I am pretty sure, though, that “grace” is not a “substance” that we obtain by means of partaking in the “sacraments.”
Pretty sure is not absolutely sure, so you are at least open to the possibility that you are wrong and that God could impart grace to us by means of partaking of the sacraments. So, is imparting grace by means of partaking of the sacraments impossible for God?
God bless…
To think that Catholics and Protestants are divided on the subject of justification, I would simply point to the “Joint Declaration of Justification” penned by the Lutherans and Catholics in a joint effort, which was also just ratified by the Methodist Church. I would say we disagree on the sacraments more than the subject of justification.
The key component is grace. We are saved by grace, of which our participation is in faith and works. But the scriptures say that faith comes from God, and that God works in us to do good works. Phil 2-12-13 “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.”
Why Catholics would disagree with the separation of justification into forensic justification and sanctification. They see it as both and event and a process. As James puts it. Faith without works is dead. A faith alone can’t save, and works alone can’t save, so then what does save? Grace. If we just leave it at that event of faith it leaves a transformed person without a transformed life, which they can still walk away from at any time.
To quote Fr Alvin Kimel on justification: (great blog by the way at http://pontifications.wordpress.com/)
“it reminds the believer that life in Christ is a work in process, a work to which he may and must contribute and which he is free to abandon (God forbid); second, it reminds the believer that God is irrevocably committed to his salvation—at each step of the way the divine Lover graciously makes himself present to the believer and “rewards” him with sufficient grace to bring him to his heavenly destination.”
There is an organic relationship that cannot be separated between faith and works. Both are required, but all that is requred of us is cooperation. For God will give us the faith and God will do the work. (again see phil 2:12-13)
Faith, Hope and Love… (the trinity of salvation) and the greatest of these is Faith… oh wait
Love.
Hmmm. This conversation hath taken a most curious, most curious turn.
I’ve got two strikes against me in this conversation. First, I am no theologian–just an observer. Two, I am a woman who needs seek her husband’s advice on this subjects of doctrine. The plus is that he blesses me with the options of entering into such conversations–and so here goes my latest thought:
“And I am convinced and sure of this very thing, that He Who began a good work in you will continue until the day of Jesus Christ [right up to the time of His return], developing [that good work] and perfecting and bringing it to full completion in you.” Philippians 1:6. Amplified.
I love that verse because it promises me that God began the work, He’s doing the work, and will continue to work in me to develop in me His work for His work. Does this makes sense to anyone but me? selahV
If one is going to discuss justification as a Catholic-Protestant issue, it is really important to realize that neither Catholic nor Protestant reflection stopped in the 16th century. It is my experience that most folks, Catholic and Protestant, do not understand what the Catholic Church in fact teaches on justification, nor do they understand the diversity that exists on this issue both within Catholicism and Protestantism.
For example, the Catholic-Protestant difference has often been polemically described as the difference between imputed and imparted righteousness. But in fact Martin Luther’s understanding of justification cannot be adequately stated as the imputation of righteousness nor does the Catholic understanding of imparted righteousness necessarily exclude the mechanism of imputation. Hence the possibility of significant ecumenical rapprochement, as demonstrated in the Lutheran/Catholic agreement. I strongly recommend Tony Lane’s book *Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue: An Evangelical Assessment*.
SelahV
You are right, that is a beautiful verse, and relates exactly what we are talking about here.
Sorry not to have interacted with everyone up to now. I have been travelling, and without access to internet.
Timothy,
I agree with you that the Bible is inerrant and Truth can never contradict Truth. But that does not mean that APPARENT contradictions are always simple to resolve. When I say I struggled with the apparent contradiction, I mean I have strived to not just give a simplistic explanation. I think that perhaps the illustration I have provided here may provide an important key to the correct explanation. In faith, I believe there is a good explanation. In humility, I am not certain that mine is the best explanation. However, I think it may well be a good one. But, I also think it is wise to bounce ideas like this off of other people who also study Scripture and reflect upon its proper interpretation. It is entirely possible we may be able to learn something from each other.
Also, when I say “pretty sure,” for me, that is a polite way of saying “absolutely sure.” That is, unless, as Martin Luther might have said, someone can convince me otherwise from the words of Scripture.
Nothing is impossible for God. Yet, I am convinced He will not contradict his revealed will and way of working in Scripture. For this reason, I am “pretty sure” that “grace” is not a “substance” that we obtain by means of partaking in the “sacraments.”
Brett,
I am curious, just for the sake of understanding better where you are coming from, if you yourself are either Catholic or Lutheran?
In any case, I am aware of the “Joint Declaration on Justification,” but not thoroughly versed in its contents. From what I remember, though, I think it may be possible that the Lutherans agreed to a view of justification that is not entirely congruent with a normal conservative evangelical view. I think it is important to recognize that one Lutheran group does not represent all of evangelicalism.
I agree with you that the key component is grace. However, I think it is important to be clear what we mean when we talk of grace. From what I understand of Catholic teaching, grace is indeed a “substance” that we obtain by means of partaking in the “sacraments.” To me, that whole concept is foreign to the teaching of Scripture. Grace is, by definition, unmerited and totally free. Also, I think that John Daly is right when he says it boils down to “imputed grace” vs. “infused grace.”
There, I have laid a few more cards on the table.
Fr. Alvin Kimel (and Brett, if you care to chime in),
I am very curious to know if you think the illustration I give of the million dollar reward and the circumstances is consonant with a Catholic understanding of faith and justification.
Abu Daoud, David Worley, John Daly, SelahV, and others,
I wonder especially if any of you see a conflict between my illustration and a biblical understanding of faith and justification.
Hi David,
Thank you for reminding us to stick to the original post and your proposal.
As I re-read it I found myself wondering if it is really not about two different topics: if we are hoping for a reward for our good deeds, then are they actually good deeds? And then the second question about the nature of grace (which is what the discussion has focused on).
I would also love to tackle the question of sacramentality, because I think it is a weakness of evangelicalism. Our lack of sacramental symbols and worship opwns us up to various dangers like the cult of the pastor (Pastor Jim isn’t here on Sunday? I might stay home), consumerism (I like the music here, so I come), and various forms of emotionalism and experientialism (seen especially in various charismatic churches).
I came out of non liturgical conservative Bible church background and into a liturgical, sacramental, and catholic Anglican community. But if anything it has strengthened my desire and ability to proclaim the Gospel to Muslims because I have now (I think) a more coherent and stable understanding of the community (the church) into which I am summoning them through the Cross.
But to return to your question of rewards: I think that hoping for a reward does not nullify the goodness of the deed, as long as it is not the only motivation. I will help a friend move his stuff, I hope he will pay for the gas or invite me to lunch, but it is still a gracious and gratuitous exchange and if he doesn’t do anything for me I am not slighted. It is not an economy of exchange–that belongs to the world.
Hi John,
You said:
>>I fully realize I shall be measured and as such, choose words very carefully. It is also why I focus on doctrine and not on people. For me it all boils down to two simple words: infused or imputed. How is grace acquired? How is a person justified?
(Sorry, I don’t know why that last comment is only partial…)
Hi John,
You said:
I fully realize I shall be measured and as such, choose words very carefully. It is also why I focus on doctrine and not on people. For me it all boils down to two simple words: infused or imputed. How is grace acquired? How is a person justified?
The discussion you mention is significant, and Al Kimmel’s post above addresses the topic. Let me simply make three points:
1) I agree that there is not a clean-cut divide between Protestants and Catholics here, or even evangelicals and non-evangelicals. Nor do I think that the two narratives of grace you mention are mutually exclusive.
2) I prefer a word other that acquired. I find that the language acquisition tends towards an economy of exchange (see my previous post), while I would find a more communitarian and Trinitarian concept of participation to be preferable. I make no accusations of wrong-doing on your part. But when we are discussing such questions it behooves us to use all needed rigor in treating words and ideas with great care.
3) So now: how do participate in God’s grace? The answer: in two ways: by direct experience, and by mediation. Direct experience is rare and many Christians do not ever have this experience, which is, in one word, mysticism. Think Ezekiel 1 and his apocalyptic visions—that is direct experience.
The primary way we participate in God’s grace is mediation. How is God’ grace mediated? His invisible grace is mediated through the visible world: the Bible, which is a physical and tangible object that tells us about real people and what they wrote. Baptism and Communion are ways we can participate in God’s gift. The laying on of hands to appoint/ordain a minister for the church is such a mediation, the anointing of the sick with oil is too. The Church as a visible entity and representation of God’s invisible Kingdom is such a mediation.
This understanding of God’s grace mediated through the physical is present in Scripture from Genesis (God made material things and they were good), through the incarnation (God actually becomes matter), to Pentecost when the Church is born, to Revelation when the City of God comes DOWN to our material realm, and no one becomes a disembodied spirit.
Hi, David. If I may I would like to challenge your statement that Catholics understand grace as a substance. This is not accurate–at least it is not accurate for the best of Catholic theologians, whether they be Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Bonventure or Henri de Lubac, Karl Rahner, and Hans Urs von Balthasar. I do not know how much you would like to explore this, but you may find of interest a series of articles on grace I wrote a while back.
Succinctly, I think I would want to say that Catholic theology understands grace as God’s loving self-communication to humanity. Grace is God’s gift of himself to man. Grace is participation in the divine life of the Holy Trinity.
Abu Daoud,
Thank you for your comment. It helps me to understand better where you are coming from.
Regarding hoping for a reward and good deeds, as well as faith, I bring to the witness stand the following passages:
Hebrews 10:35-36
So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised.
Hebrews 11:6
And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11:8-10
By faith Abraham, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, obeyed and went, even though he did not know where he was going… For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.
Hebrews 11:24-26
By faith Moses, when he had grown up, refused to be known as the son of Pharaoh’s daughter. He chose to be mistreated along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward.
Regarding sacramentality, I would counter that one set of weaknesses (cult of the pastor, consumerism, emotionalism, experientialism) does not justify another set (sacramentalism). We ought rather to hold up all of our practices (Protestant, Catholic, or whatever they be) to the light of God’s unchanging, infallible Word.
In any case, thanks for the comment. I am enjoying the interchange.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Thank you for your comment. As a Baptist missionary to Spain, this is a subject that I indeed think should be worth my time and effort to study further. I look forward to reading your articles.
I like the definition of grace you give here:
“God’s loving self-communication to humanity.”
In and of itself, I think that we can agree on that. However, I still think that once we begin to flesh out that definition, and the practical application of grace in our lives, we will soon find areas of divergence of understanding.
Would you not agree that some Catholic authors do seem to describe grace as a “substance”?
Would you not agree that some Catholic authors do seem to describe grace as a “substance”?
Of course (though I can honestly say that I cannot recall reading a contemporary Catholic theologian who is guilty of that).
And would you not agree that some Protestant authors, especially of a charismatic bent, seem to describe the work of the Holy Spirit along the lines of the Force?
I suspect that whenever one is trying to speak of our real participation in God, particularly at a popular level, one inevitably falls into impersonal categories. We just need to be critically aware of the limitations of our language.
Catholics wish to make two essential points: (1) By grace God truly incorporates us through adoption as sons in the Son into the divine life of the Holy Trinity. (2) When God communicates himself to us, we are changed–i.e., grace does not leave us untouched and unaltered. We are deified, sanctified, regenerated.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Yes, you do make a good point about the Holy Spirit as “the Force.”
I do want to truly understand the Catholic position.
I have some real difficulty, for instance, with the following quotes from the Cathechism:
“Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.”
“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.”
“The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.”
“No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.”
Also, I read through your articles (though admittedly, rather quickly). The article on the reformed understanding of grace seemed fair enough to me. However, not being familiar with the precise meaning of some of the terms used (e.g. “habitus,” “created grace,” etc.), I am still struggling with really understanding what is being said. Perhaps throwing in the Orthodox understanding at the same time is muddying the water a bit for me. Also, I would have liked to see the whole discussion framed more from the perspective of Scripture.
In any case, I think I am compelled to agree with your conclusion:
“One fact consoles us in this sorry dispute about grace: all Christians admit these two articles of Christ’s revelation: ‘Without me you can do nothing‘ and ‘I can do all things in Him who strengtheneth me.’”
Some brief comments on the citations from the CCC:
“Celebrated worthily in faith, the sacraments confer the grace that they signify.”
There is nothing specifically “Roman” about this. Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans would agree with it. I think that many, or some, Reformed would agree also.
The essential point being made is that the speaker/actor of the sacraments is Christ Jesus himself. When Christ says, e.g., that he will baptize you in the Holy Spirit, he really does it. Each sacrament is a divine word and action: they accomplish what they promise. Sacraments are embodiments of pure grace!
“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation.”
The sacraments are necessary for salvation precisely to the same extent that the Church is necessary for salvation. For the Catholic the Church truly is the body of Christ. To be sacramentally united to the Church in faith is to be united to Christ himself. Christ will not be divorced from his Church.
“The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.”
See above.
“No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.”
I’d prefer to postpone discussion of merit until later. It has a long history in Western reflection. It is simply a way of insisting that God is faithful to his promises and rewards those who persevere in faith. Please note that those who are said to “merit” are those who have already been freely and gratuitously justified by Christ and in Christ.
Hi David,
I agree whole heartedly with all your references to Scripture. It is truly the rule and authority for all Christians and the Church. I do not see that any of them actually contradict what I have written though. So I am curious to know if you have agreed with my “systematization” or if you disagree.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
I appreciate your explanations of the Catechism (CCC). Although I do not agree with the Catechism at these points, I do think you explain it quite well, and from what I can ascertain, correctly. You make an interesting point regarding the Orthodox, Lutherans, and Anglicans. I will need to look into that further.
From these quotes from the CCC, and your explanation, though, although you may prefer to avoid the use of the term “substance,” from my perspective, it amounts to the same thing (e.g. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace… by which divine life is dispensed to us”). It is, in any case, as I understand it, a very different understanding of grace than that of Baptists/Evangelicals.
Once again, as a Baptist/Evangelical, I would prefer to discuss these questions on the basis of Scripture. Perhaps we could make some more headway that way.
Abu Daoud,
Yes, in the end, we seem to be in agreement here. My Scripture references were in response to your question:
“if we are hoping for a reward for our good deeds, then are they actually good deeds?”
However, when you add, “I think that hoping for a reward does not nullify the goodness of the deed, as long as it is not the only motivation,” we are on common ground.
It does seem to me that the legitimacy of hope for rewards as a motivation is often overly de-emphasized.
From these quotes from the CCC, and your explanation, though, although you may prefer to avoid the use of the term “substance,” from my perspective, it amounts to the same thing (e.g. “The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace… by which divine life is dispensed to us”).
David, there is absolutely nothing in the CCC citations or in my explanations that suggests a “substantialist” understanding of divine grace. Perhaps you are seeing “substance” (what exactly does this word mean to you?) in these passages because you have been told by certain polemicists that that is what Catholics believe and teach. Is it the word “dispense” that bothers you? The catechism authors could just as easily have substituted “bestowed upon us” for “dispensed to us,” with no change of meaning.
Once again, as a Baptist/Evangelical, I would prefer to discuss these questions on the basis of Scripture. Perhaps we could make some more headway that way.
All Catholic reflection on these questions is based on Holy Scripture. Catholics, though, are very much aware that we must and inevitably do employ (consciously and unconsciously) philosophical understandings in our interpretation of Holy Scripture. We just try to be as upfront about this as possible. There is always the danger that we will distort the biblical witness by artificially twisting it to conform to our philosophies (whatever they might be), but that is a danger for evangelicals as much as for Catholics or Orthodox. Catholics, like the Orthodox, are also very much aware that theological reflection does not stop with exegesis. As soon as we put our questions to Scripture to address specific theological problems, we find it is necessary to go beyond Scripture, to make distinctions and perhaps to create even new conceptualities, precisely in order to give a *biblical* answer. The best example of this is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The 4th century Church discovered that they could not simply employ biblical categories in order to respond to the teachings of Arius. They were forced to respond to his teachings by employing words like ousia and hypostasis.
What precisely would you like to talk about on the basis of Scripture?
I’m happy, for example, to talk about sacraments. I believe that the Baptist rejection of sacramental efficacy is thoroughly unbiblical. I’m not sure how to prove this to you, though, because I know that a nonsacramental reading of the New Testament is possible and has proved persuasive to many evangelicals. But I’m convinced that the nonsacramental reading is wrong and violates a proper understanding of the gospel.
Or we might talk about justification, which is where we began in this thread. The problem here is that nobody can agree on what justification means in Paul or how Paul’s understanding coordinates with the rest of the Bible or with the theological tradition. I am not a biblical scholar, so I can only go so far in such a discussion; but I’m happy to share with you my understanding of what Catholics believe on the subject.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
I admit the possibility that my assumptions on a “substantialist” understanding of grace may be skewed by the input I have received from others. And, I suppose the word “dispense” does indeed evoke for me the connotations to which you allude. Let me pose it this way: Does the Catholic church teach that the more one partakes of the Eucharist, the more grace he/she accumulates, and that the quantity of grace accumulated has a bearing on one’s eternal destiny?
Regarding discussing these things on the basis of Scripture, I agree that our philosophical presuppositions do influence our intepretations. At the same time, I am convinced (along with most Baptists/Evangelicals) of the supreme authority of Scripture in determining questions of doctrine.
While I can appreciate other styles of argumentation, it makes sense to me to first identify the passages of Scripture that appear to teach the particular view being advocated; next, discuss possible interpretations; and finally, discuss philosophical ideas underpinning these interpretations. Perhaps that is more personal preference than anything else, though.
I am aware that the topics of sacraments and justification are topics that have taken up thousands, and no doubt, millions, of pages of theological reflection down through history. While I do not want to back away from an open and irenic discussion, at the same time, I am aware that we are not going to settle the debate here.
My main purpose in this post was to throw out the illustration of the million dollars and the circumstances, and ask if others agreed that it helps throw some light on the apparent discrepancy between Paul and James.
I did not expect to engage the input of a Catholic theologian/apologist. Frankly, I am intrigued by your participation, and honored to have you here.
As I alluded to earlier, it does behoove me, as a Baptist missionary to Spain, to understand as correctly as possible Catholic doctrine. If you can help me out here, in terms that are accessible to someone like me, who is not all that conversant with some of the philosophical background you mention, I will be grateful.
If you think this is worth pursuing, one possible point that I would be curious to hear from you is what particular Scripture passages do you feel lend support to the idea that “the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us.”
Does the Catholic church teach that the more one partakes of the Eucharist, the more grace he/she accumulates, and that the quantity of grace accumulated has a bearing on one’s eternal destiny?
In the primary sense of the word, grace is God’s self-communication. How does one accumulate God? How does one possess God? On the other hand, Scripture speaks of the fullness of the Spirit and of being filled with the Spirit and even exhorts us to be filled with the Spirit. The language of course is metaphorical, because the Spirit is not a liquid or impersonal energy or substance. The Spirit is uncreated indivisible deity. Yet speaking of filling appears to be a normal way for Christians to speak of their participation in the life of the Spirit.
Well, Catholics talk the same way. Within the tradition “grace” came to be used more and more fo the presence and work of the Holy Spirit in our lives. We may sound like we are accumulating some impersonal substance, but this is merely a metaphorical but popular way of speaking. Grace is not a substance. Grace is God. Catholics go to Mass to meet the living God and to partake of the Body and Blood of the Savior.
Re read the CCC on grace (http://tinyurl.com/35y4cc
hat do you object to in this section?
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
With the exception of the implication that, in the Lord’s Supper, we partake of the literal “Body and Blood of the Savior,” I have no problem with what you say here.
In the CCC, I do have some disagreement with the following statements:
1992 Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.
1997 by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism.
2003 There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments.
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
Also, from the section on the Eucharist:
1392 What material food produces in our bodily life, Holy Communion wonderfully achieves in our spiritual life. Communion with the flesh of the risen Christ, a flesh “given life and giving life through the Holy Spirit,”229 preserves, increases, and renews the life of grace received at Baptism. This growth in Christian life needs the nourishment of Eucharistic Communion, the bread for our pilgrimage until the moment of death, when it will be given to us as viaticum.
1393 Holy Communion separates us from sin. The body of Christ we receive in Holy Communion is “given up for us,” and the blood we drink “shed for the many for the forgiveness of sins.” For this reason the Eucharist cannot unite us to Christ without at the same time cleansing us from past sins and preserving us from future sins:
1394 As bodily nourishment restores lost strength, so the Eucharist strengthens our charity, which tends to be weakened in daily life; and this living charity wipes away venial sins.
1992 Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith.
To be justified is to be united to Jesus Christ and thus to share in the trinitarian life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Baptism unites us to Christ and regenerates us in the Holy Spirit and thus is properly termed the sacrament of justification.
“And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:11)
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.” (1 Cor 12:12-13)
“Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. I mean that the heir, as long as he is a child, is no different from a slave, though he is the owner of everything, but he is under guardians and managers until the date set by his father. In the same way we also, when we were children, were enslaved to the elementary principles of the world. But when the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons. And because you are sons, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, crying, “Abba! Father!” So you are no longer a slave, but a son, and if a son, then an heir through God.” (Gal 3:23-4:7)
“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, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:4-7)
“Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” (Mark 16:16)
See Leithart: Baptism and Justification. Also see Martin Luther’s discussion of baptism in his Large Catechism.
1997 by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body.
See above.
1999 The grace of Christ is the gratuitous gift that God makes to us of his own life, infused by the Holy Spirit into our soul to heal it of sin and to sanctify it. It is the sanctifying or deifying grace received in Baptism.
“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” (John 3:5)
“Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Rom 6:3-4)
“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority. In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.” (Col 2:9-12)
Also see above.
2003 There are sacramental graces, gifts proper to the different sacraments.
Why not? Ordination is the classic example. Those who are ordained to pastoral ministry are given by God freedom to serve within the Body of Christ that is not given to the baptized.
2020 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism.
See above. Please note the claim here that justification is merited by the Passion of Christ.
2027 No one can merit the initial grace which is at the origin of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit, we can merit for ourselves and for others all the graces needed to attain eternal life, as well as necessary temporal goods.
Once we are justified in Christ, regenerated in the Spirit, and adopted as sons in the Son–in other words, once we have been incorporated into the divine life of the Holy Trinity–our prayers and works do have real value before God, because they participate in the prayers and works of Jesus our Great High Priest. Within the Latin tradition, “merit” has a specialized meaning and is dependent on Augustine and Aquinas. It does not mean “earn” in the way that we normally think of the word. As the CCC makes clear: “With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator” (2007). In the words of St Augustine: “If then your merits are God’s gifts, God does not crown your merits as your merits, but as His gifts.” The key here is the intimate union between Christ and the believer. By baptism we are truly made one with Christ.
With regards to the Eucharist, I would prefer deferring discussion to another time. Let’s concentrate instead on baptism, which initiates us to the Eucharist.
Fr Kimel,
Your comment this morning was flagged by our Spam filter because it contained more than one hyperlnk. I just found it and authorized it within the comment stream.
Sorry I didn’t check earlier this morning …
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Thank you for taking the effort to accommodate my request for discussing these questions on the basis of Scripture. It will probably not surprise you, however, that my understanding of many of the passages you mention here is different from traditional Catholic interpretation.
For example, I see no reason to assume 1 Cor. 6:11, Titus 3:5 or John 3:5 refer to water baptism. The metaphor of “washing,” in my opinion, refers rather to the cleansing of sin effected by the Holy Spirit in the act of spiritual regeneration. The possible interpretations for the phrase “born of water” in John 3:5 are varied.
Also, although 1 Cor. 12:13, Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:3-4 and Col. 2:9-12 all evidently refer to baptism, I do not think the evidence is conclusive they refer to water baptism as opposed to Spirit baptism. However, in both Rom. 6:3-4 and Col.2:9-12, there is an apparent allusion to the symbolism of death, burial, and resurrection inherent in the act of immersion in water.
I also think it is significant that Mark 16:16 does not state that he who is not baptized is condemned. It does make clear, however, that baptism without the corresponding faith of the one being baptized is unable to keep him/her from condemnation.
I would also point out that effusion or sprinkling in water is not the same as biblical water baptism (or immersion).
On the other hand, the Bible appears to be quite clear that justification is accomplished in the lives of individuals apart from “works of the law” in passages such as:
Romans 3:27-29
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Romans 4:1-3
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about—but not before God. What does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand.
Romans 10:9-11
That if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. As the Scripture says, “Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
Galatians 2:15-16
We who are Jews by birth and not ‘Gentile sinners’ know that a man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by observing the law, because by observing the law no one will be justified.
Galatians 3:11
Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, “The righteous will live by faith.”
Ephesians 2:8-9
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.
Also, it is apparent in the following passages that water baptism comes after the initiation of individuals into a life of Christian discipleship, by way of personal repentance and faith…
Acts 2:37-38
When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?” Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 2:41
Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Acts 8:12
But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Acts 8:36-38
As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. Why shouldn’t I be baptized?” Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” And he gave orders to stop the chariot. Then both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water and Philip baptized him.
Acts 10:46-48
For they heard them speaking in tongues and praising God. Then Peter said, “Can anyone keep these people from being baptized with water? They have received the Holy Spirit just as we have.” So he ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked Peter to stay with them for a few days.
Acts 16:14-15
One of those listening was a woman named Lydia, a dealer in purple cloth from the city of Thyatira, who was a worshiper of God. The Lord opened her heart to respond to Paul’s message. When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home.
Acts 18:8
Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
1 Corinthians 1:17-18
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Also, I do not find any reference to the “sacrament of ordination” in Scripture. The practice of “laying on of hands” in order to commend someone to a new ministry or place of responsibility in the church, yes; but “ordination,” in the sense of transforming them from “laity” into “clergy,” never.
David, I knew that we would quickly get to this point. Each tradition interprets Scripture differently. I honestly do not know how to proceed any further. It’s not a simple matter of appealing to Scripture, as we both appeal to Scripture. We can each line up scholars to support our respective points of view. And I am confident that biblical scholarship, as a whole, supports what we might call the catholic reading of Scripture. But I also concede that intelligent and thoughtful men disagree.
The critical difference is that I have the entire ecumenical and consensual tradition on my side, whereas the Baptist interpretation baptism cannot appeal to any significant tradition before the 16th century. At this point we are not debating Scripture as we are debating the question of what Newman call “private judgment.” Here is why I finally decided I could no longer continue as a Protestant Christian. I could no longer oppose my own private readings of Scripture against the consensual tradition of the Church.
This is the very struggle I am now dealing with. I grew up in a Southern Baptist church, and am still going to one for the time being.
As a good friend once said, “to be steeped in history, is to cease to be protestant.” How can we just turn our heads to 1500 years of history and just say, they have been interpreting it wrong all these years.
I think of Luther’s commentary on the Eucharist.
“Who, but the devil, has granted such license of wresting the words of the holy Scripture? Who ever read in the Scriptures, that my body is the same as the sign of my body? or, that is is the same as it signifies? What language in the world ever spoke so? It is only then the devil, that imposes upon us by these fanatical men. Not one of the Fathers of the Church, though so numerous, ever spoke as the Sacramentarians: not one of them ever said, It is only bread and wine; or, the body and blood of Christ is not there present.
Surely, it is not credible, nor possible, since they often speak, and repeat their sentiments, that they should never (if they thought so) not so much as once, say, or let slip these words: It is bread only; or the body of Christ is not there, especially it being of great importance, that men should not be deceived. Certainly, in so many Fathers, and in so many writings, the negative might at least be found in one of them, had they thought the body and blood of Christ were not really present: but they are all of them unanimous.”
–Luther’s Collected Works, Wittenburg Edition, no. 7 p, 391
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Yes, indeed, “soul competency” and “free examination” of Scripture, or “private judgment” (as you say Newman called it), are watershed issues that will end up determining the ultimate paths we will take in regard to these questions.
As I attempt to read and decipher centuries of church tradition and dogma, I see glaring inconsistencies. I could choose to blindly “swallow and follow.” But, as I weigh the various alternatives, it seems preferable to me to try, as best as I know how, to seek to understand what God himself, by way of the Sacred Text, is saying, and use that as a filter of my view of church tradition, rather than vice versa.
At the same time, I am more than aware of my personal limitations and sinful fallibility. So I want to do my best to keep an open mind to the insights of others, and an open heart to the conviction and leading of the Holy Spirit.
In our dialogue here, I have appreciated the irenic and measured tone you have maintained. It seems to me that you are sincere in your own convictions. I pray that God will continue to enlighten each of us as we seek to know him better, and be faithful, according to the understanding He allows us to have, to his will.
“It seems preferable for me to try, as best as I know how, to seek to understand what God himself, by way of the Sacred Text, is saying, and use that as a filter of my views of the tradition, rather than vice versa.”
David, I respect you as a fellow Christian, but there are some king sized problem with this statement. It is taking a relativistic viewpoint towards examining scripture. It is saying that the sole authority for the interpretation of scripture rests on your shoulders and your own listening to God. It is almost saying that the true interpretation cannot be known. It is up to us to figure out what it all means to us and through God. The problem is that is how we got mormonism, jehovah’s witness, and scores of other spinoffs who all had their own claim on the “right” translation. All claiming the right reading of the bible.
And it betrays the fact that whether you like it or not, you are reading the scriptures in the light of tradition. In fact it is tradition that picked the very scriptures we have.
Take the Trinity, that holy mystery. We take for granted that this was an issue that the early church debated over. The debates between Athanasius and Arian in the 4th Century were not between someone who was reading Scripture and someone who wasn’t. Both were working from the bible. Both were trying desperately to be faithful to scripture. Arian took seriously those places where Jesus places himself in a subservient role to God. Arian thought Scripture (in many places) painted Christ as not entirely equal with God, for if he was how was that not a devolution into polytheism? (thanks Erik for the quote)
The fact is, we needed authority to give us an authoritative Bible. The Nicene Creed which resulted from this debate is a heuristic for understanding the Scriptures. The Bible was always meant to be read through the church. This is the reason churches write statements of faith. There has to be a starting point. A base. If I rely on myself at the base, who knows what direction I will shift.
Brett,
I am not saying to throw out the validity of tradition altogether. If my views on a particular passage of Scripture were not shared by others, I would certainly be amiss to claim my interpretation as the correct one. However, we must somehow come to grips with the inconsistency of the testimony of the supposed heirs of tradition down through history.
Even in the proper application and interpretation of tradition, we must rely, to some degree, on our own reasoning ability.
Various Church Fathers, for instance, approached biblical hermeneutics from completely different perspectives. Today, the allegorical model proposed by the Alexandrian school, Origen, and most medieval theologians is regarded as outdated and misleading by modern interpreters of practically all faith traditions. The literal interpretation model of the Antiochene school, John Chrysostom, and Theodore of Mopsuestia is regarded as more helpful. Yet, at certain stages of the Middle Ages, the allegorical model was the consensual preference of the church of the time.
In the end, we must decide if the Romanist version of history and biblical interpretation is credible or not. Or if we are more persuaded by the arguments of other faith communities who have also wrestled with the same texts.
Hi David,
I would like to take issue with your use of the word “Romanist”. One can hold a high degree of respect for Tradition without being Roman Catholic. In fact it was my conviction that I as an individual just did not have the wisdom and knowledge and maturity to always interpret the Bible correctly that made me start investigating the early Church.
I recommend reading up on Paleo-orthodoxy, maybe something by Thomas Oden (a Methodist–hardly a Romanist
if you get a chance.
Brett is quite right in mentioning the formation of the NT Canon. Some books almost did not get in (Revelation, 2 Peter, Hebrews) some books almost got in but didn’t (1 Clement, Mathetes). If we do not have a theology of Tradition that can in some way say that the discernment of which books were and were not inspired is infallible, then it is basically up to every Christian to make that decision. In fact some Lutherans in the 16th C. did in fact want to reopen the question of the NT Canon because they rightly saw it as precisely what it was and is: a tradition of men.
As an Anglican I am Reformed, evangelical and charismatic, yet have a very high view of Tradition, sacramental worship, and the liturgy. These things can all go together quite well.
Yet, at certain stages of the Middle Ages, the allegorical model was the consensual preference of the church of the time.
Exactly! All the Church Fathers agreed that the allegorical and typological reading of Scripture was proper and necessary. They may have disagreed among themselves on the interpretation of specific texts–Antiochians may have believed that the Alexandrians went overboard in their allegorical readings and Alexandrians may have believed that the Antiochians did not read deeply enough into the text–but everyone agreed that what we might call the grammatico-historical reading, which has become dominant in the Church since the Enlightenment, was inadequate.
To accept the determination of the Church that these specific writings are inspired by God and thus authoritative for faith and practice and yet reject the hermeneutics of the selfsame Church is illogical and makes a proper interpretation and application of Scripture impossible. We simply cannot divide Scripture from the Church and attempt to read Scripture apart from the living faith of that Church, which alone directs us to a proper understanding of Scripture.
When I was wrestling with the question on whether to remain a Protestant Christian, I formulated this rule: “When Orthodoxy and Catholicism agree, Protestantism loses” (Pontificator’s First Law). Catholicism and Orthodoxy represent the two oldest Christians communions. If they are wrong on the points upon which they agree, then the gospel is truly lost and everyone is simply guessing, with no hope of correction.
The implications of my rule are manifest. For example, we immediately see that the Baptist and evangelical understanding of baptism must be wrong. It doesn’t matter how many biblical verses are invoked. On this issue, Baptists and evangelicals are reading Scripture against the mind and faith of the Church and therefore they must be wrong. If the Church is wrong on baptism, she could just as easily be wrong on everything else, and we are all lost.
David, I respectfully suggest that the hermeneutical stance you have outlined in your comments ultimately commit you to a church of one. If every individual is the the final judge of Christian doctrine, then every individual will end up creating a Christian faith specific to himself. It doesn’t matter how sincere and pious he is, his Christian faith will always be a faith for one. Folks of like mind may temporarily associate together, but they will never be a true Church. They can only be a voluntary association of many churches, with every individual constituting in himself one church.
They aren’t worth very much, here here are some of my past reflections on sola scriptura and sacred tradition.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Are you saying that Catholics are in agreement on every interpretation of Scripture?
Are you saying that Catholics are in agreement on every interpretation of Scripture?
Of course not!
But there are some readings of Scripture that are ruled out by the authoritative teaching of the Church. For example, a Catholic cannot interpret Scripture in such a way that it would deny the doctrines of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation as defined by the ecumenical councils. Catholic reading of the Bible is normed by the faith of the Catholic Church. The same might also be said for the Eastern Orthodox reading of the Bible. As Fr John Breck states, the Holy Spirit creates a sacred circularity between the faith of the Church and the Church’s reading of Holy Scripture.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
I imagined you would say that.
But, is there any definitive criterion by which the interpretations of one Church Father are weighed against the interpretations of another Church Father? Would it be agreement with the CCC?
Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that there is a progression in doctrine? Does the Church of today necessarily understand God’s revelation than the Church of yesteryear? Did the Church during the “Bablyonian Captivity” period understand God’s revelation better than Early Fathers?
That should be:
“Does the Church of today necessarily understand God’s revelation better than the Church of yesteryear?”
David, I need to note that you have not responded to anything I have said in my past couple of comments.
But, is there any definitive criterion by which the interpretations of one Church Father are weighed against the interpretations of another Church Father?
The opinions of the Church Fathers, as with any theologian, are to be judged according to the apostolic deposit of faith. Are there, for the Catholic, definitive criteria? As I mentioned in my previous comment, Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures is normed by the faith of the Church; and this faith includes dogmatic propositions that are deemed by the Church as irreformable. The dogmas that define the doctrines of Holy Trinity and Incarnation, as defined by the the ecumenical councils, for example, enjoy such irreformable status. For the evangelical, there can be no such thing as irreformable doctrine, because every doctrinal assertion, no matter how traditional, may be challenged by any believing Christian in the name of Scripture.
Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that there is a progression in doctrine?
The Catholic Church teaches that the Church may grow in her understanding of the apostolic deposit of faith. In the words of Vatican II: “The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her” (Dei Verbum 8).
Does the Church of today necessarily understand God’s revelation than the Church of yesteryear? Did the Church during the “Bablyonian Captivity” period understand God’s revelation better than Early Fathers?
I think it is the case that the Church in a given time and place may have a deeper understanding of a piece of doctrinal truth than the Church of an earlier time or even a later time. It’s not as if all is progress, as in some evolutionary model. Sometimes the Church “forgets” a truth (though never of course completely) and needs to be reminded of it. I believe, e.g., that the Church of the 16th century needed to be reminded of the truth of the sola gratia.
The Church Fathers enjoy a privileged position, but their teachings and opinions do not possess an infallible status.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
Sorry about not responding more substantially (pun not intended). For me, the questions I am asking get to the meat of the primary “talking points” between us.
I hear your answers, but they still leave me with some questions for which I don’t feel I have a satisfactory answer yet. I hope you don’t take it as overly impertinent if I ask even more questions.
I was wondering, for example, is there any document, or collection of documents, in which the “apostolic deposit of faith” is fully embodied? To what extent does the CCC come close to this? Are the pronouncements of all the Church Councils included here? Where do we draw the line between irreformable dogma and mere human opinion? By what criteria do we determine what falls on what side of this line?
For me, even if we could (or can?) produce this definitive document or set of documents, there would still be a need to interpret correctly what it says, just as there is a need to interpret the Bible. Doesn’t this leave us, in a sense, back at “square one”? Maybe the entire “apostolic deposit of faith” is more precise than the Bible, but if so, isn’t it just so in a quantitative sense rather than a qualitative one?
I was wondering, for example, is there any document, or collection of documents, in which the “apostolic deposit of faith” is fully embodied?
According to Catholic teaching, Holy Scripture is our primary written witness to the apostolic deposit of faith. Most Catholics are happy to speak of the material sufficiency of Scripture. But the apostolic deposit is not limited to the biblical texts. It is embodied in the Church herself–in her liturgy and sacraments, her praying, preaching, and teaching, and her ministerial ordering. Thus the oft-quoted statement of Vatican II: “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church” (Dei verbum 10). As Mark Shea helpfully explains:
“Catholic teaching says written Sacred Tradition (known as Scripture) is materially sufficient: all the bricks necessary to build its doctrines are there in Scripture. But because some things in Scripture are implicit rather than explicit, other stuff besides Scripture has been handed down from the apostles. This other stuff is unwritten Sacred Tradition (which is the mortar that holds the bricks of the written Tradition together in the right order and position) and the Magisterium or teaching authority of the Church (which is the trowel in the hand of the Master Builder). Taken together, these three things are formally sufficient for knowing the revealed truth of God.”
I referred earlier to Fr John Breck’s description of the relationship between Scripture and Tradition as a holy circularity. I like to think of it as a dynamic coinherence in the Spirit: Scripture, Tradition, Church–the deposit of faith is to be found in fullness in each and each coinheres in the others.
The most helpful book I know on this is Yves Congar, The Meaning of Tradition.
If one is asking the practical question of where may one find the authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church, then the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the place to begin. But the CCC is not an infallible document nor are all of its contents and assertions beyond debate. Some Catholic polemicists like to paint the Catholic Church as a monolithic community in which vigorous theological disagreement and debate does not exist. That of course is pure nonsense. The Church’s apprehension of the deposit of faith is certain, yet the verbal articulation of a specific truth of revelation and of its relation to the wholeness of Catholic faith may not be so certain. The Catholic Church is a community of theological discourse and debate, normed by irreformable dogma. Catholics may debate how best to articulate the mystery of the Holy Trinity, but that God is the mystery of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is beyond debate. Catholics may debate how best to articulate the mystery of the Holy Eucharist, but that the consecrated bread and wine truly are the adorable Body and Blood of Christ is beyond debate. What is important is not having 100% certainty about the truth and adequacy of all theological propositions. What is important is belonging to that community that the risen Christ has promised to lead into all truth by his Spirit.
For me, even if we could (or can?) produce this definitive document or set of documents, there would still be a need to interpret correctly what it says, just as there is a need to interpret the Bible. Doesn’t this leave us, in a sense, back at “square one”?
You are absolutely correct. We can never escape the need to interpret. And this is why Christ has provided to his Church a living, Spirit-guided teaching office. We no longer have Apostles around to whom we can ask the question “What does this mean?” But we do have their successors, the bishops ordained in apostolic succession, each of whom has received from the Spirit a charism to teach the gospel. In communion with each other and with the bishop of Rome, these bishops may speak to us an authoritative word from God that excludes error and directs us to the truth (see Lumen gentium). It is the living teaching office
that rescues us from the dilemma of private judgment–not in the sense that we now stop thinking and debating and arguing, but in the sense that God has provided to his Church a final forum of appeal, and to its definitive and irreformable judgments we may submit ourselves in good conscience.
The need for a Spirit-guided teaching office in the Church has been ably stated by the Lutheran theologian, Robert W. Jenson. Here is a lengthy citation from his Systematic Theology:
“There is a decisive difference between agreeing or disagreeing with someone who speaks and agreeing or disagreeing with a text someone has written. If you assert something, and I say, “I disagree with your assertion that …,” you may respond, “But that is not what I assert.” Then I can listen further, get a clearer understanding of your intention, and try again to agree or disagree. I am to agree or disagree with the person. But if I am reading a text, I have to agree or disagree with it and not with the writer. Over against a text, the question cannot be, What do you want to say? It can only be, What did someone in fact say, even if unintentionally?
“In one way, a reader is therefore more free—it may seem indeed, omnipotent—over against a text than is a listener over against a speaker. A speaker is there to defend his or her intention against my interpretation. Once discourse has become text, it lacks this defense. A text is a bundle of signs left behind by their user, and merely as such cannot defend itself against readers; if the text itself is in any degree to adjudicate between proposed interpretations, some living, personal reality must maintain the text’s independence. Nor can the interpreters individually or in association make this defense, since they are themselves the problem.
“If now we ask who is to defend a biblical text against its churchly interpreters—perhaps by pointing out facts about it–the final answer is that the Spirit must do so. But at the lower level … the needed insight is that there is no one to defend the text against the association of its interpreters except the community of those same interpreters, that is, the church as church over against the church as a certain number of conjoined persons. All texts finally need an interpreter that is no particular interpreter or even all partricular interpreters added or averaged together, that is to say, all texts need a true community as interpreter; in the church, Scripture has just such a defender.
“But if the church as community is to defend the text against the interpreting of the church’s associated members, the church must have a voice with which to speak for herself to her own members. Biblical authority—and mutatis mutandis ritual and dogmatic authority—are therefore not possible apart from a voice for the church as community speak to the church as association, that is, in the church’s own language, apart from a teaching office, a magisterium.
“The single entity of the church-community, to which appeal is here made, is both synchronic and diachronic in its unicity, but it is the latter that is now our concern. Through the teaching office, the church speaks as one diachronically communal reality and is guarded in this unity precisely by so speaking; therefore the teaching office must itself be essentially characterized by diachronic unity. In the church’s teaching language, this is called “succession”: those are to teach who make one community with former teachers.
“There is an obvious problem here. It is the teaching office that speaks dogma, that speaks theologically for the church to its own members. Every proposal of dogma, like every proposal of theology generally, must be tested against Scripture and existing dogma. But we now see that it is, again, the teaching office by which Scripture and dogmatic texts can assert themselves. Here is a circle that obviously could set the teaching office adrift to define the gospel as whatever pleases its momentary holders. Sensitivity to this threat has notoriously made Protestantism uneasy with the posit of an authoritative magisterium. Yet now we see that a teaching office is necessary if Scripture or dogma are themselves to exercise authority.
“The magisterium can be the necessary enunciator of the gospel’s diachronic identity rather than a threat to it, can be the defense of Scripture and existing dogma rather than a danger to them, only if the circularity of the magisterium’s role marks the freedom of a charism, if the teaching office is an instrument of God the Spirit.
“At bottom, the chief thing to be done about the integrity of the church across time is to pray that God will indeed use the church’s structures of historical continuity to establish and preserve it, and to believe that he answers this prayer. Much futile polemical theology will be spared on all sides when this is recognized without qualification.” (Systematic Theology, I:39-40)
Abu,
For some reason, your comment was captured as spam by our akismet spam filter. I’m not sure why. I just found it and authorized it. I’m sorry I didn’t find it sooner. I usually only check the spammed comments every 3 or 4 days.
Fr. Kimel,
Your last comment was flagged for moderation because it contains more than one hyperlink. Sorry for the delay.
I thank you both for joining in our conversations.
Abu Daoud,
Perhaps the term “Romanist” comes across as pejorative or as “broad-brushing.” If so, I am sorry. I meant it here as a synonym for “Roman Catholic.”
I realize there may indeed be some cross-over of ideas in regard to tradition between some, like you, who are not Roman Catholic, and others who are Roman Catholics. But, no doubt, there are also some discrepancies, or else you would identify yourself as Roman Catholic.
The whole issue of the formation of the canon, though obviously related, is, in my opinion, a bit out of the scope of what we are discussing here on this post. I know there are different theories regarding this, even among evangelical Protestants. I don’t want to totally “blow off” your observations, but to pursue this at any length here would require me to go back and do some more research and re-read some books that I have not looked at for awhile. I feel bad saying this to you, because I agree that it would be an interesting and worthwhile discussion. Perhaps at some future time we can pick it up again somewhere.
In any case, my point to Brett about the “Romanist” (or Roman Catholic) version of history and biblical interpretation is that it comes kind of as a “package deal.” It is not really consistent from a Roman Catholic perspective, as I understand it, to judge and discriminate between different sources of tradition. Either the whole “apostolic deposit of faith” (as Fr. Kimel reminds us) is true and trustworthy, or it is not. However, it seems evident to me that there are elements within this tradition that are self-contradictory.
Does that mean we should throw out altogether the ideas and writings of the Church Fathers and theological thinkers, Roman Catholic or otherwise, down through the centuries? In my opinion, no. I am open to learn from anyone and everyone. But I will also compare and contrast what they are telling me with the Word of God, to the degree I, with the help of the Holy Spirit, am able to understand it.
Fr. Alvin Kimel,
It still seems to me that, when we come down to it, the essential difference between the degree of doctrinal certainty and specificity of an epistemological foundation based on Scripture alone and one based on Scripture plus Tradition is of a quantitative rather than qualitative nature. In the end, there are still many particular points that are left up to the individual to try to ascertain and apply correctly in his/her own life. And, at least from my perspective, that is a good thing. God did not make us robots. Seeking and discovering his will for our lives is an integral part of what it means to have a dynamic relationship with him.
At the same time, though, I agree that our faith journey is not meant to be an altogether individualistic affair. We walk together as fellow sojourners, both with the saints in our local community of faith, as well as the saints around the world and throughout the ages.
The difference, as I understand it, between our perspectives, is that, for you, the bona fide authorized guides for us in our journey are the heirs of a theoretical apostolic succession that I am not even sure exists as such; while I, although open to hear what they may have to teach me, do not limit myself to an elite group of intermediaries pre-determined by an institutional hierarchy. What’s more, what I have studied of history leaves me to call into question the true motives of many of those who influenced the development of this particular system and network of ecclesiastical control.
In other words, from my perspective, the authentic apostolicity and catholicity of the Church of Jesus Christ is not embedded in a humanly defined institution, but rather is expressed wherever and whenever heartfelt disciples of the Lord Jesus come together to seek God’s face, submit to his will, and encourage each other, and hold each other accountable, in this endeavor.