I’ve been pretty busy lately. What’s more, I intend to be pretty busy for the rest of the week. I don’t mean that I’m any busier than anyone else. What I do mean is that my blogging has been slow, and that there will be more time to interact with Mr. Stellman’s claims in time.
Even so, this post from Jason Stellman was brought to my attention. I thought it warranted some attention. To be sure, there will be many more publications to come from Mr. Stellman. He will do his best to undermine sola scriptura et sola fide… let God be true and every man a liar.
One thing that Mr. Stellman wants to make clear is that he was REFORMED before his move to Rome. This is, or course, part of the polemic. Protestant Christian, rest assured that Jason Stellman KNOWS your position better than you do. HE WAS TOTALLY REFORMED. In Mr. Stellman’s words:
I was as happy and comfortable in my confessional Presbyterian skin as anyone, and the trust I had earned from many well-known and respected Reformed theologians, as well as having graduated with honors from one of the most confessionally staunch and academically rigorous Reformed seminaries in the nation, should be sufficient to dispel any notions that I never really understood Reformed theology in the first place or that I was always a Catholic in Protestant clothing.
This is the uniform pitch from the boys at Called to Communion. They were more Reformed than you. After all, did you graduate from Westminster… the bastion of Reformed verity?! You might think you know the Bible and Reformed theology, but these boys at CTC know Reformed better than you do, cuz they were totally Reformed. This is one of the aggravating aspects of this discussion. Now, listen: I graduated with a 3.9/4.0 (I earned two degrees) at just as fine a Reformed seminary as Mr. Stellman did. Does that make me “Reformed”? Of course not. A degree is a paper that testifies that coursework was completed. My continued conviction makes me Reformed; the same makes me catholic. Wisdom is justified by her children.
Mr. Stellman is an intelligent man, as are the other men at CTC. Francis Turretin and Robert Bellarmine were both exceedingly smart. That does not mean, however, that Turretin understood Romanism nor that Bellarmine understood Protestantism. Just because a man used to be “Reformed” does not mean that he had a firm grip on what “Reformed” is. The flip side of this is that just because a man (like me) remains in the Reformed sub-camp of catholicism doesn’t mean that he know what it means to be “Reformed.” The truth of God, the Word of God will must lead us. Again, wisdom is justified by her children; let God be true and every man a liar.
Tim,
“Boys”? I’m 43. How old are you? Are your arguments and evidence so poor that you have to resort to this sort of patronizing name-calling?
In your opinion, what, exactly, about Reformed theology did those of at CTC not know?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, don’t be so sensitive. I use the term “boys” in a sense of brotherly camaraderie, not as any sort of diminutive. I’m 34, which is Polish for 43. In case you’re sensitive on the racial/ethnic front, too, my last name is Polish, so I can totally make fun of Pollocks! I’m not into name calling (except for fun), which you should know by now. If I’ve offended, Bryan, I apologize; I certainly did not mean to do so.
To be honest, Bryan, I don’t know all the fellows (boys, if you will) at CTC. I don’t know what they know and what they don’t know. I’m sure, however, in keeping with George’s comment above, that none of the scholars (boys, if you will) understand and embrace the biblical doctrine of justification. That’s a pretty important thing both to understand and embrace… ask my boy, Saint Paul.
Tim,
Your whole post seems to be intending to support the thesis that those of us at CTC didn’t know Reformed theology. That’s an easy accusation, so I’m asking you to point out which parts of Reformed theology we didn’t know.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Tim,
It seems to me that instead of accusing us of having been ignorant of something (you know not what), a better, more helpful and more potentially fruitful response would be this: Here’s where they went wrong. …. Their reasoning process went wrong at this step. And this conclusion they reached is wrong for these reasons….
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Tim,
Do you open your session meetings with “Hey boys, let’s begin with prayer”? Or do you only refer to them as ‘boys’ behind their back? If you regularly and publicly refer to your session members as ‘boys,’ and at least one or more of them is older than you, then I’ll accept your claim that you meant nothing derogatory when using the expression “boys at Called To Communion.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Like I said, Bryan, quit being so sensitive. I explained myself; I should hope that would be enough. But since it is not, I use the term “boys” in less formal situations than Session meetings. I think blogging would qualify, don’t you? Moreover, I nowhere intended to imply that the CTC fellers don’t know their Reformed Ps and Qs. My intent was to reply to Stellman’s self defense (that he graduated with honors…). My secondary intent was to voice the frustration that comes in discussing an issue with someone who thinks they have a through knowledge of your position. May they do; maybe they don’t. In either case, it’s an irritation and an impediment to discussion to talk/act that way. This has nothing to do with CTC as such, but I have seen it come through in my discussions with Tim Troutman plenty of times. FWIW, Bryan, I cannot recall noticing this unfortunate tendency in you, which is excellent (props to you).
Mr. Cross,
Maybe you could defend the infallibility of the pope?
Stellman may have “understood” the Reformed Faith, but he never embraced it as his own. No man who understands his own sin and depravity will find any comfort outside of justification by faith alone in the all-sufficient, once-for-all vicarious satisfaction of our Lord. “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
Bryan,
I read boys in a completely different light, on par with “fellas”. I don’t believe you’re using the principle of charity in reading this.
Jason, show me the instances where Tim refers to the members of his session as “boys” and you’ll have a point. Maybe we were just raised differently, but I would never refer to men older than myself as “boys.”
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
I’d have to dig up a post where Tim writes about his session to meet you fully. A quick search of boys just in the blog found at least one instance where the Genevan Reformers – all of them certainly older than Tim – are called (bad) boys. 🙂
I’m sure you were raised differently and I’m sure that you would not call anyone older than you as “boy” or “boys”, but that’s the purpose of the principle of charity, so that one might digest something without reading into it a logical fallacy (not that name calling is technically a fallacy).
Without that filter, I believe one will be quick to find offense and heat, rather than any serviceable discourse.
Jason,
Here’s what I see quite commonly among Reformed pastors. Men who agree with you are called men. Men with whom you disagree strongly are called boys. That’s why the federal vision defenders are frequently referred to (by those who disagree with them) as “FV-boys.” There is a reason for this selective use of the term ‘boys.’ It is derogatory. If it weren’t, they would use it equally of men with whom they agree, and men with whom they disagree. When called on their use of it, they can, of course, always claim that they meant it as “fellows.” But, their selective use of it only in reference to those with whom they disagree shows otherwise.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, Maybe you just need to thicken your skin a little bit and get over this part of Tim’s writing style that you perceive incorrectly. Move on to the meat and stop getting your panties in a twist. Tim is one of the most charitable “guys” you will ever meet, I am not.
The Hammer
As I review the authors page over there at CTC it seems to me that maybe most of these guys have a few to many brain cells than is good for their faith. I don’t want to be anti-intellectual, but there is a point at which getting your brain in a knot over something is counterproductive. I imagine a couple of the brain knots would revolve around “what is the truest church?” and a comfort that the authority of the Catholic church supreme. What would some others be?
Mr. Cross is getting all frustrated over the term “boys” when it was obviously used in a playful fashion: Lame. That he couldn’t get over it after Tim apologized: Lacking a certain amount of class. Now that he keeps it up he has to deal with the Hammer: Priceless!
Tim, I entirely agree with your post. In fact, I love how you identify an early gambit in the the spiel for why Geneva sucks and Rome is grand. It is very important that we recognize how rhetoric works as we get the glowing picture of Rome from CTC and others. After all, Rome is the solution to all the Reformation’s problems… except that it made the Reformation necessary. Weird how that works.
Locirar,
No, just wondering why rudeness is so endemic to 20s-to-40s men in Reformed culture. Why does a Reformed pastor, who is supposed to be exemplifying grace and charity, even have to be telling other people exposed to his words to get thicker skin?
I’m not speaking only of Reformed treatment of Catholics, but even Reformed treatment of Reformed. Rudeness is commonplace, even defended.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Why don’t you show us some of that and let it go. Nothing even happened to you and then you turn it into a vast Reformed conspiracy to offend you. Now that’s weird.
Isn’t it rude, Bryan, to come into my house (er, blog) and implicitly accuse me of being a liar? Ironic.
In the past I have found you to be a fair and educated discussion partner, but I think that you’re not flying your standard colors in this discussion. BTW, I think it can be quite gracious and charitable to tell someone to get thicker skin (even though I didn’t say that). I told you not to be so sensitive.
Tim,
I haven’t accused you of lying. I’m simply asking you a question: Do you, or do you not, publicly and directly refer to the men of your session as “boys”?
If so, then I will retract my complaint.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, I’ve answered your very silly question above, but I’ll do it again. In informal situations, I speak informally. In formal situations, I try to speak formally. Last I checked, Session work is formal, and blogging is not. You have IMPLICITLY accused me of lying, as you still do not believe my explanation, nor have you even acknowledged my apology. I suggest you drop the nitpicking and browbeating or leave off coming here. I don’t want you hijacking my posts. You have managed to shift the focus from what I *actually* wrote to something else entirely. The knee-slapper is that, after all this, you have deigned to lecture me on being rude!
Tim,
Again, I’m not accusing you of lying. It seems to me that you don’t realize the objective connotations of the term ‘boys’ when used to refer to men with whom you disagree, at least as the English language is used in the areas of the country where I have lived. Everywhere I’ve lived, the term as used in that context to refer to other men *is* diminutive.
And it seems to me that if you were truly apologizing, you wouldn’t keep defending yourself.
I’m not wanting to debate with you about this ad infinitum. It is tiresome, I’m sure for you too. Nor do I have any intention of hjacking your threads. I brought this up initially because I believe strongly that we can’t make an inch of theological headway until we first share a mutual genuine commitment to respect and civility in dialogue, a commitment that forms a different culture for dialogue. Civility and respect are each an ecumenical sine qua non. The culture of disrespect and rudeness is something we have to make a conscious effort to distance ourselves from. Whether formal or informal, disrespect is still disrespect, and reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics is a very serious and important thing, not a trite thing. It seems to me that especially in ecumenical discussions, extra care is needed to be respectful, sensitive and civil. And that’s why I’m addressing this issue first, before the theological stuff.
My request is simply that we all strive to be civil and respectful in our speech to one another. I expect and believe that you at least share that commitment.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Tim:
It’s probably worthwhile just removing all of Mr. Cross’ obviously off-topic comments. If he wants to discuss doctrines, that’s one thing – if he just wants to blubber about perceived mistreatment (even after being informed that he’s mistaken), let him use his own blog for it.
-TurretinFan
Hear, O hear the T-fan, young Tim!
Cross & Co will parse ya to death.
They are strangely enough neither men nor boys – they are like their chief idol, their universe’s queen, Mary.
Psalm 115:4ff ~
Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands.
She has a mouth, but she speaks not:
Eyes has she, but she sees not:
She has ears, but she hears not:
A nose has she, but she smells not:
She has hands, but she handles not:
Feet has she, but she walks not:
Neither speaks she through her throat.
They that make them are like unto them;
…so is every one that trusteth in them.
So we have issues pertaining to the Gospel to be discussed and we are distracted by the use of the term “boys?”
If we could stop talking about the word “boy” for a single minute…
A few things:
First, what happened to Stellman’s post/article? It seems to have disappeared from the CTC website. ??
Second, Stellman’s opening (trying to demonstrate his reformed history) reminds me a little of Paul laying out his Jewish history in Galatians 1, Acts 22, et al. It isn’t necessarily an illegitimate way to begin an argument.
Bob, WordPress took your comment as spam! Must be that gmail thing… you should revert to AOL!
I dunno what happened to Stellman’s article. I’ve heard it disappeared from the CTC site altogether. Would that all the other articles would do the same! As to the creds, see my comment to Christina below.
“Whether formal or informal, disrespect is still disrespect, and reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics is a very serious and important thing, not a trite thing. It seems to me that especially in ecumenical discussions, extra care is needed to be respectful, sensitive and civil.”
E.G. Paul and Christ?! I plan on ministering the Gospel in Brazil which is still a Roman Catholic country. In the global South Roman Catholocism mixes with Spiritism, Afro-religions, and etc. I have seen many a poor Brazilian literally crawling on their knees for miles in hopes of finding some kind of peace with God. Because of our heritage as Americans we do not see the other side of Rome. Maybe getting out and seeing the actual realities of Rome’s at least implicit acceptance of something as Satanic as “Spiritism” in its midst, would help some of these guys.
Doug,
I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Church doesn’t encourage people to practice Spiritism.
I’m sure there are many Protestants in the United States that read horoscopes, go to psychics, play with Ouija boards, etc…and then go to Sunday Service. Should I assume implicit acceptance from the Protestant pastors?
I will agree with you that the Catholic Church in Brazil could probably do a better job discouraging people from practicing spiritism (if one person is practicing, it’s too many).
I don’t agree that it’s accepted.
Bryan,
In TIm’s defense, he has used “boys” to refer to the Protestant reformers and he also refers to the writers at CTC as “men” in his blog post as well…but this really isn’t that important.
Tim,
I’m curious as to your thinking…so, if I understand correctly, your thinking is that if a person truly understands Reformed theology, then they would not convert. Correct?
What if the person truly understands Reformed theology but comes to the realization that Catholicism is true? Does that sound impossible to you? I think that’s what happened at CTC and with Stellman (as he mentions in his guest article on CTC).
I think you’re coming from a perspective that Catholicism is false and so “Person X” would only leave Reformed theology if they didn’t understand it because you know it’s true (which ultimately leaves yourself as your true authority)
These former Reformed Protestants also were like you but came to the realization, “Either Catholicism is true or it’s not…” If it is true, then there were major portions of Reformed Theology which would have to be rejected. If it is true, they had no choice. They had to convert.
As a cradle Catholic, I cannot fathom what Stellman or the CTC writers went through in their conversion process. My faith journey has been much different as I didn’t start studying the Protestant approach to faith until I was firmly grounded in Catholic teaching at which point, I studied with an open mind but honestly, the Catholic understanding is so much deeper and profound. Studying Protestantism has only given me a deeper understanding of my Catholic faith–for which I am grateful.
Dennis, I am not thinking as you think I am thinking. 🙂
I think it quite possible thoroughly to understand Reformed theology (RT) and come to the conviction that Roman Catholicism is true. I suspect that both Stellman and the others at CTC have a deep and significant understanding of RT. I have asserted nothing to the contrary above. As I mentioned in a comment to Bryan above, I was zeroing in on Stellman’s defense that he has a nice shiny degree from Westminster. THAT does not mean 1) that he knows RT or 2) that he ever really fully embraced RT. The second point is more important. Further, it has been a struggle discussing things with some CTC men who think that they have an impeccable knowledge of RT. Maybe they do (and maybe they don’t), but either way, it kills the conversation.
Bryan, I’ve continued to defend myself (joylessly, I might add) because you’ve continued to ride the issue. Again, I apologize. I certainly had no intention of speaking down to anyone. Dennis is quite right that I use the term fairly promiscuously. I will make efforts to remember that it can be taken as an insult by some.
Tim,
Thank you. I appreciate that.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Tim,
Got it…thanks for the clarification.
Dennis
See how easy you guys are becoming… keep hangin’ around and you’ll become beatniks.
Tim,
I had a lousy GPA (but got an MA in biblical studies from Westminster in CA).
I love the sovereign Lord Jesus and hate Rome’s Gal. 1:8f anti-gospel.
Those who’ve knowingly poped from the gospel of grace have fallen farther than anyone, imo.
Keep making waves.
You seem to be bothered by Jason’s insistence that he indeed had an orthodox understanding of the Reformed faith. I imagine he stresses this point to deter the inevitable accusations from the Reformed camp to the contrary.
To make your point one worth making, could you outline what Jason still allegedly misunderstands? There are ears here to listen.
Christina, you seem to suffer from the same reading impediment as so many of your RCC fellow-readers. I DID NOT SAY that Jason has misunderstandings of Reformed theology. Read what I actually wrote. I’m addressing his credential bolstering and, from there, a common problem that I’ve run into with the fellers from CTC. That’s ALL. No ad hominems, no accusations that folk have misunderstood Reformed theology, just fuzzy bunnies and heady India Pale Ales.
I don’t suffer from a reading impediment; I’m trying to figure out your implications here (which is actually an advanced reading skill). Assuming you believe Jason’s (and the CTC contributors’) understanding of Reformed theology to be correct, why do you find the reference to his credentials to be problematic? Establishing credibility for oneself is important, especially when writing to a potentially hostile audience.
As a convert myself, I can attest to the fact that a knee-jerk response from my Protestants is “Oh yeah? Well…. you must not really know ((example)) theology, then!” This isn’t very scholarly, and perhaps Jason was trying to avoid this distracting argument in favor of more productive dialogue.
I won’t pretend to know your motivations behind this post, but I speculate that you may believe Jason to be a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect, i.e. “he doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” If I’m wrong, then are you simply annoyed that Jason converted despite his rigorous Reformed education?
Okay, Christina, the reading impediment might’ve been a little rough. In any event, if one’s going to fish around for what one thinks I might have inferred, one should at least first get a handle on what I explicitly said. It seems that what I explicitly said has been routinely brushed aside by the RC commenters on this thread.
Let me add something that might clarify what I’m after. I don’t doubt Stellman’s intellectual ability, nor that of the fellers over at CTC. I have found them (specifically the CTC guys, as I’ve not had too much interaction with Stellman, especially since he’s recently become something of a celebrity) to be educated and intelligent. Further, I don’t want to (and didn’t mean to) discount anyone educational or experiential creds. Stellman DID graduate from Westminster, evidently with honors. In all likelihood, he knows Reformed theology better than I do. It’s quite possible that the CTC hombres do too. I couldn’t know one way or the other. Is that clear?
What bothers me about the creds is what too often follows from their publication. First thing is that just cuz one gradulated from Worstminster don’t mean that one knows RT. What’s more, even if one knows RT doesn’t mean that one fully embraced the same. E.g., I went to a seminary that taught a certain eschatology (“Historic” Premillennialism). I aced all the courses that had anything to do with eschatology. It doesn’t follow that I “know” that eschatology. Theology is too rich, deep, and broad to think that way about it. What’s more, embracing a thing is quite distinct from a bare knowledge of it. Again, the richness of spiritual knowledge precludes such simple notions. These distinctions seem to me to be immediately evident upon just a little examination.
Another thing that bothers me about the creds thing is with they’re used to shut down one’s interlocutor. “I completely understand your position, cuz I used to be Reformed.” Stellman, of course, didn’t do this, but I have seen it done PLENTY of times at CTC and here on my blog. Tim Troutman has played that card on me more than a couple times. Not only does it demolish the important distinctions I mentioned above, but it’s also a lame move. It’s too often intellectual laziness (or at least a lack of patience) mixed with pride, and it kills the conversation.
Hugh turns a legitimate concern about the condescending use of the term “boys” and turns it into a pedophilia slur? Really?
Blogs worth reading don’t approve comments like the one above. IMO, of course.
Christina, I trashed that comment. It was uncharitable and not helpful. Incidentally, I trashed it before I read your take on it, which is spot on. Thanks!
I appreciate it.
Christina,
Tim’s use of “boys” was TAKEN by you & Cross to be “condescending.”
Tim denies using it derogatorily. You & Cross can have chosen not to take Tim @ his word ~ I use[d] the term “boys” in a sense of brotherly camaraderie, not as any sort of diminutive. So be it.
It appears that Cross is sensitive about the use of the word, “boys.” I spoke to your religious organization’s record on child abuse: Such is its own slur, and speaks for itself. You may not like it, but it is illegitimate for you to complain about my post and in the same sentence imply that Tim is lying. He has said that Cross’s judgment of Tim’s use of the word “boys” was incorrect. Cross’s judgment was wrong and thus, an illegitimate concern!
Hugh, you’re trying to defend too many things at once. I’ll take Tim at his word regarding the term “boys.” I still call it wildly inappropriate for you correlate Cross’ reaction with pedophilia sensitivity. Tim seemed to agree.
Great. Moving on (back) to Tim’s article: Stellman from our side has defected/ apostasized.
He has denied the faith, for without the gospel of the sufficiency of Christ’s death & resurrection for sinners (sans Romish accretions) there is no gospel.
Romans 4:25 ~ who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
1 Cor. 15:3f ~ Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
Jason now denies that Christ’s death secured anyone’s redemption on its own merits. He denies that the Bible alone is the authoritative word from God and that justification is received by grace through faith in Christ alone, alone, and alone. Whatever else he is/ was, he is apostate.
He’s gone out from among us. Apart from repentance and faith, he proves he never was of us.
Hugh,
I can understand your thinking that Stellman has “defected/apostasized.” From your perspective, I’m sure that is what it seems like.
He has denied the faith, for without the gospel of the sufficiency of Christ’s death & resurrection for sinners (sans Romish accretions) there is no gospel.
Can you explain your thoughts on this? I’m not seeing it. I’m sure he still understands the sufficiency of Christ’s death and resurrection for sinners. The Catholic Church does not deny this.
He denies that the Bible alone is the authoritative word from God and that justification is received by grace through faith in Christ alone, alone, and alone.
That is not Scriptural.
He’s gone out from among us. Apart from repentance and faith, he proves he never was of us.
I would argue that he now has a better understanding. He’s grown, matured and become a better Christian. I don’t think Mr. Stellman regrets being a Protestant at any point…it’s just now he understands better.
Hey, Dennis,
“Sufficiency” may not be sufficient, eh? 😉
Complete efficacy, successful, complete. As I said, “sans Romish accretions.”
“The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin,” as saith 1st St John 1:7.
Romans 4:25 ~ who was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification.
1 Cor. 15:3f ~ Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
“Jason now denies that Christ’s death secured anyone’s redemption on its own merits.”
We maintain it did/ does, sans Romish additions.
Siad Jesus in John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you , He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.”
I know the RCC does not allow sola gratia, sola fide or solo christo. So be it. We maintain these are 66-book scriptural, if one does not allow other scriptures, councils, or decrees to overthrow them.
It’s either all of grace or it’s grace +.
Sadly, Mr. Stellman doesn’t “understand better now.” Justification by faith alone IS the Biblical Gospel. One need only consider Romans 4:5 (“God justifieth the ungodly”) and Ephesians 2:8-9 (“For by grace are ye saved through faith”) to realize that this is the Biblical Gospel recovered and restored to the Western catholic church by the Reformers. Rome officially repudiated and anathematized this Biblical Gospel at the Council of Trent, so Rome is an apostate church body. For Stellman to deny the Biblical Gospel and to embrace the Roman Gospel is to apostasize from the Christian Faith and to damn himself and his hearers. He desperately needs our prayers for his conversion.
Derschul – quite. He and his family need our prayers. It’s one thing to be a “cradle” Catholic and really not know any better. Apostasy is far more heinous than mere ignorance or confusion. Tridentine doctrine, as I understand it, is (at crucial points) quite opposed to the Gospel. This breaks my heart. CTC keeps summoning Reformed folks to give up the word of God for human tradition; it beckons the sons of Christ’s church to abandon the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone and substitute it with human invention. May God have mercy.
I wonder if Mr. Stellman has ever read and pondered Calvin’s little tract “Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto”? Calvin was a pastor at heart, and he was deeply concerned that some of the Genevans were being tempted to leaved the Reformed Faith and to return to Rome. Hence, his “Reply to Cardinal Sadoleto.”
Tim,
Which verse or verses of Scripture have we told people to “give up”?
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, Hugh has given some examples above that might be worth considering. For my part, I’m increasingly convinced that Rome has elevated Tradition above the Scripture (and the Magisterium above both). Rome has perpetuated the Pharisaic error which Jesus attacks directly in Mark 7:1-13. E.g., God establishes the freedom of conscience from dietary law (Mark 7:19), but Rome condemns certain foods on certain days. God establishes the freedom of believers in Christ to approach God in repentance for forgiveness of sins through Christ alone, while Rome saddles her sons with a secret confession to earthly priest. More centrally, God has revealed that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works, (Rom 3-4 for starters – 4:5 – And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness.”) while Rome explicitly rejects this, as a study of Trent will bear out. The first two errors are small fries compared with this last one. The problem is that all of them stem from Rome’s view of revelation and authority. Until Rome repents and returns to the written word of God – the Bible – she will continue in her errors and continue to reject the biblical Gospel, and that to the great peril of Roman Catholic but also the whole world.
Tim,
All the verses that Hugh mentions are verses Catholics affirm as true, and inspired by the Holy Spirit. We also affirm Mk 7:1-13, 19. You assume that that passage means that all dietary precepts are removed. But it does not say that. The dietary laws of the Old Covenant are removed, but that does not mean that the Church can make no laws regarding fasting under the New Covenant. Also, Catholics affirm every verse in Romans 3-4, including Romans 4:5. So it is absolutely false that the Catholic Church “explicitly rejects” Romans 4:5. We believe that that too is both true and God-breathed.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, I’m quite sure that the Pharisees “affirmed” the commandment to honor father and mother, too. Jesus was not addressing their “affirmations,” he was addressing how their traditions undermined the commandments of God, and how their holding to such traditions betrayed their empty “affirmations.” The exact same thing would apply in all the cases I’ve mentioned and scores more.
Tim,
Undoubtedly they did. But the fact that the Pharisees erred does not show that any Catholic tradition undermines any command of God.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
I’m not say it does, Byran. I’m saying that the Roman church’s errors show that Roman tradition undermines the express word of God. Are you playing softball with me or what?
Tim,
“I’m saying that the Roman church’s errors show that Roman tradition undermines the express word of God.”
Which errors? (And please don’t beg the question.) You haven’t yet shown there to be a single error in Catholic doctrine.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Tim, I can respect the notion that graduating (honors or not) from any institution *alone* is not (nor should it be) grounds for someone being considered proficient at anything, whether Reformed, Catholic or anything else. Although along that line of thought, if those things mean nothing in terms of credentials, why does everyone go off to “the best schools” but to get the best training? So I think he has a point in using it as evidence.
But I think a larger reading of his whole statement doesn’t indicate that his position is the degree alone makes his understanding of Reformed theology beyond question. He even mentions specifically “the trust [he] had earned from many well-known and respected Reformed theologians” as additional evidence to support his claim. I haven’t seen that aspect mentioned in this discussion.
I would say that in charity he’s simply making the case that a rational person can look at his background in the Reformed tradition and say with some certainty that he knows his stuff as reasonably as any prominent pastor/theologian in that arena. That’s it. Beyond that I think you’re shadow-boxing a strawman that just doesn’t exist: namely that Jason Stellman, because of his degree, is/was “more Reformed” than you.
Regards,
Pete
Thanks for commenting, Pete. Also, welcome to my blog.
If you get a look at my last comment to Christina, you’ll have a better idea what I had in mind. You’re quite right that Stellman isn’t guilty of arguing in the ways I’ve indicated. You’re also quite right that his creds are true creds. My response to Stellman should be seen in the more general context of polemics between Reformed and Roman, especially with the CTC men. The last paragraph of my original post is the substantive part of the post, the preceding stuff is a bit tongue in cheek. The post is about how we interact, not about how Stellman has interacted. In any event, thanks for your comment.
For the RCC, “both true and God-breathed” apply to more than the 66 books of Scripture, and hence, we are at loggerheads.
We don’t deny that Rome says she accepts the Bible, just that she then also illicitly adds to it! She can say she believes Romans and Mark and the others, but she nullifies the word of God by her tradition[s].
Mark 7:8 and all that ~ You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.
“Hypocrites,” I believe, is Jesus’ complaint against the Romanists.
Hugh,
“We don’t deny that Rome says she accepts the Bible, just that she then also illicitly adds to it!” Illicit means against the law. Which *law* are you referring with regard to the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the canon?
Which Catholic doctrine “nullifies the word of God”?
““Hypocrites,” I believe, is Jesus’ complaint against the Romanists.” — Except Jesus never said that to Catholics. You’re presuming that Catholic tradition is merely man-made, and not given by the Apostles, and guided in its development by the Holy Spirit. And that assumption begs the question by presupposing precisely what is in question between Protestants and the Catholic Church. So your interpretation of Mk 7 as applying to Catholics is a question-begging interpretation. Surely you see that.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan,
Which *law* are you referring with regard to the inclusion of the deuterocanonical books in the canon?
The law of Rev. 18:18.
Which Catholic doctrine “nullifies the word of God”?
Her teaching that the RCC can add to authoritative revelation (dogma) through her Apocrypha, councils, decrees, etc.
Hugh
Hugh, Rev. 18:18 doesn’t spell out the canon. If the deuteros are divinely inspired, then it is not contrary to Rev 18:18 to include them in the canon.
The Catholic Church does not “add to” authoritative revelation. See paragraphs 65-66 of the CCC:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a1.htm#65
Rather, her decrees and dogmas develop the deposit of faith entrusted once and for all to the saints.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Hugh,
In regards to your Bible passages above, do you think a Catholic disagrees? A Catholic affirms all of those Bible passages.
In regards to sola gratia, I believe that you need God’s grace to do anything. We can do nothing without the grace of God, so yes, everything comes from grace. It’s not grace +. It’s grace. However, there is SOME participation from man.
You believe in Sola Scriptura and yet, in order to understand Scripture, you still had to learn how to read. Your ability to learn how to read is due to your first grade teacher. She (or someone) helped teach you to read. Therefore, you could not understand Scripture without her. Granted it’s God’s grace that allowed you to read and yet, it’s not quite sola gratia. You still need help along the way to understand and to learn. And yet it all comes from God.
In regards to sola fide. What is faith? As a Catholic, I adhere to faith being a complete and utter trust in God’s promise so that I completely submit myself to the will of Christ. So, when Christ (and Peter and Paul) says to be baptized, I get baptized. Note that Peter tells us that it’s Baptism that saves us (1 Peter 3:21). So, apparently, it’s not sola fide. It’s sola fide + baptism.
When Jesus tells me to eat His flesh so that I may have eternal life, I do that. (John 6:51). So, it’s not sola fide. It’s sola fide + eating Jesus’ flesh. Why??? Because Jesus tells us this in Scripture.
So, is it Sola Fide or is it Baptism which saves us (1 Peter 3:21)? Is it sola fide or is it the Eucharist (per John 6?) I believe what saves us is completely submitting yourself to the will of Christ and trusting in His words. It’s to be Baptized into His death that saves us (per Romans 6:3). It’s the Eucharist that gives us eternal life (per John 6). It’s completely submitting yourself to the will of Christ that saves us. So, in that essence, yes. I believe in sola fide. I believe in solo Christo. I believe in the Catholic Church.
Dennis, see my discussion with Bryan. The Romanist “affirms” these passages the way the Pharisee “affirmed” that a child was commanded to honor his father and mother. Outward, verbal “affirmation” is worthless (actually, far worse than worthless, for it is hypocritical in the vile extreme), when one’s actual practice undermines what is *actually* revealed by God in the Scripture.
I’m beginning to see very clearly the Roman tactic of “affirmation.” It is an altogether weak defense for the traditions that undermine the commands of God. Repent and conform to God’s sure revelation in the Scripture. Men’s traditions are weak, but God’s word stands forever.
Tim,
“when one’s actual practice undermines what is *actually* revealed by God in the Scripture. ”
Which actual practice that I say or do “undermines what is actually revealed by God in the Scripture”? Please, be specific, regarding both the practice and the passages of Scripture this practice undermines. I still do not know which thing I say or do is, in your view, contrary to Scripture.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, I’ve mentioned three (one big, two small) of a myriad of Roman practices that supplant God’s revealed (in Scripture) commands. You’ve manged to say that you “affirm” all the Scripture, but those are empty affirmations. The Reformation was not in vain. The catholic church needed reformation, as it always does. Problem is that Rome has rejected the reforms from God’s word and has held to her traditions, like the Pharisses in Jesus’ day.
Tim,
Regarding fasting precepts, I already explained how that does not contradict Scripture. You’re misinterpreting what Jesus said about the dietary rules of the Old Covenant as though they apply to the New Covenant. But you don’t have the interpretive authority to stipulate that Jesus’ words disallow fasting laws under the New Covenant. So, that’s not a practice that violates Scripture; it only violates your mistaken interpretation of Scripture.
Second, regarding confession to a priest, Jesus Himself established this, when He gave the power to forgive or retain sins to the Apostles. (Jn 20:23) If forgiveness in no way depended on the priest, then it would be impossible for anyone’s sins to be “retained.” When was the last time you, as a pastor, retained someone’s sins? That doesn’t work when everyone can just go straight to God Himself.
Third, you say, “More centrally, God has revealed that we are justified by faith alone, apart from works.” However, the Bible never says anywhere that we are “justified by faith alone.” The only place it uses the words “faith alone,” are to say that we are not justified by faith alone. (James 2:24) So, this given that Scripture alone is the be the source of doctrine, this notion that we are justified by “faith alone” [and not by faith informed by agape] is a man-made tradition, because the claim that we are justified by “faith alone” [in the Reformed sense of sola fide] is not in Scripture. I have explained this in more detail in “Does the Bible Teach Sola Fide?”
So, in each of the three cases you bring up, the Catholic Church is in conformity with Scripture. I understand that it is doesn’t conform to *your interpretation* of Scripture. But one of the points of your post is that you don’t know everything, despite your degrees; you could be in error. And since you don’t have more interpretive authority than the holy Catholic Church, it would be presumptuous to hold her to *your* interpretation of Scripture, as if you were the pope, especially one who is explicitly stating his fallibility and incompleteness of learning.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, I will forego the amusement of pressing you on the “infallibility” of the Roman interpretation of Scripture. Instead, I will simply show that your thin veil is no substantive response at all. Then I will go to bed.
1) God has declared all foods clean. Done. Where does any MAN get off telling us that on certain days certain meats are proscribed? This is silly legalism and flies in the face of Gospel freedom. Do men, in God’s place, impose “fasting laws”? Submit to human tyranny if you want, but I will stand in the freedom of Christ.
2) Christ himself did not establish secret confessions to a human priest, as you humorously assert. John 20:23 says nothing of priestly absolution. You are very clearly *adding* a great deal to the text to come up with mandated, secret confession to a priest. This, itself, is instructive regard how you “interpret” the Bible. It would appear that, for you, the Bible is a Roman wax nose to mold this way or that (depending upon your tradition). Of course, it’s not. It is God’s own Word, which molds us.
3) That you appeal to James to oppose sola-fide justification shows that you clearly do not understand James. Abraham was justified *before God* back when he initially believed back in Genesis 15. James is speaking of Abraham being demonstrated as righteous by offering Isaac in Genesis 22. Game over. That you mention that faith is “informed by agape” shows that you do not understand Reformation teaching. Faith always works in love. It is not, however, the working in love, or the works that proceed from faith that justify before God (though they do before men, as per James). By faith we are united to Christ and are counted righteous in him. Romans 3-4 bear this out with particular clarity. Please to not press the caricature but recognize that the Reformed have always held that faith will work and serve God. The basis of our forgiveness is Christ’s work alone. Our good works flow from faith, which unites us to Christ.
All of these things are clearly spelled out in Scripture. You can play around with my “fallible” interpretation, but I’m not interested in games. God has spoken in Scripture. Let God be true but every man (including the Tradition [so called] and the Magisterium) be a liar. I’ll stick with God; you can have the men.
Tim,
(Sorry, no “reply” button appears on your latest response to Mr. Cross.)
Could you elaborate on this?: Christ himself did not establish secret confessions to a human priest, as you humorously assert. John 20:23 says nothing of priestly absolution. You are very clearly *adding* a great deal to the text to come up with mandated, secret confession to a priest.
I’m specifically wondering how Luther’s “plowboys” could interpret this any differently from the Catholic position without employing some serious mental gymnastics. Here’s what my MacArthur study bible says:
This verse does not give authority to Christians to forgive sins. Jesus was saying that the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel.
I find this wholly unsatisfying.
Tim,
You wrote:
I agree. The Catholic teaching concerning fasting does not depend on or presuppose that any foods are ceremonially unclean.
From the first century the Christians fasted on the day of the week Christ died. This was the practice of the Apostles. Who are you to overturn the practice of the Apostles? Not eating meat has nothing to do with the notion that meat is unclean. It came from the fact that meat was a luxury item.
For someone expressing yesterday the fact that you could be wrong, you seem very certain of yourself today. It is not legalism to fast, and to do so not just individually, but as a corporate Body. And nothing in Scripture says otherwise. Jesus Himself said “when you fast …” clearly indicating that there were would be times for Christians to fast. The Church has the authority from Christ to set precepts concerning fasting.
Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to Me, and and whoever rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” (Lk. 10:16) And His yoke is light. So listening to the Church is not “human tyranny;’ it is following the Good Shepherd. What you call “freedom of Christ” is actually following your own interpretation of Scripture, and not submitting to the Church.
Like I said, and you avoided answering, when was the last time you “retained” someone’s sins? It is your theology and practice that does not conform to this verse, not mine.
That remains to be shown.
So you think he was unregenerate and dead in his sins in Gen 12?
No it doesn’t. Justification by faith informed by agape is the Catholic teaching, which the Reformation rejected. See R. Scott Clark’s statement quoted in this article.
You wrote:
Living faith, yes. But not dead faith.
You are conflating two things: (a) faith informed by the virtue of agape — that is, living faith, and (b) faith followed by goods works. I agree that initial justification is not effected by the works that follow living faith. That’s not at all the point in contention between Protestants and the Catholic Church. The point in question is whether the faith that justifies is living faith (i.e. faith informed by the virtue of agape), or not faith that is not informed by the virtue of agape. When St. Paul speaks of justification by faith (in Rom 3-4), he is talking about living faith (i.e. faith informed by the virtue of agape). And nothing you have provided so far shows otherwise.
You write:
Again, I agree, of course, that Scripture is inerrant and inspired. So the truth of God’s Word is not in question between us. The disagreement is about interpretation. You conveniently exclude all interpretations but your own from the “liar” category. Again, that doesn’t fit with the humility and fallibility you were expressing about yourself yesterday. It seems that you want to strongly affirm the fallibility of those with whom you disagree (as you did in this post concerning Jason), but then treat your own interpretation as not possibly false, and everyone who disagrees with your interpretation as wrong, and needing to “repent,” as you put it yesterday, as if your interpretation is the standard to which all other Christians must conform.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Bryan, too much smoke (and says a lot, coming from me) and too many mirrors in your last comment for me to address. I want to zero in on how you treat God’s word. Here’s a good example of how you manipulate Scripture: Christ says, “when you fast,” and “he who hears you hears me,” and PRESTO! you come up with this: “The Church has the authority from Christ to set precepts concerning fasting.” This is the exegetical version of pulling a rabbit from a hat. This is a retrospective exegesis, one that seeks to justify a certain tradition. That’s as plain as the yogurt that seldom gets purchased.
Let me put the light of my own experience to your hermeneutical method. When I first got serious about following Christ, I was a big, fat 5-pointer. Everything had to have five points. The star of David was anathema! Because of my lack of theological breadth, I had to contort various texts of Scripture into my system. I suspect that we all do this in varying degrees. Your method of exegesis is to add your tradition into the text. Anyone reading you will see that clearly.
You’ve done just the same thing with the justification issue. You’ve taken biblical phrases like “living faith” and “faith working though love” and packed them full of Romanist meaning. Then you turn around and act as if someone who doesn’t buy your definition holds to “dead faith” or “faith NOT working through love.” Both these biblical phrases and should be defined BIBLICALLY. Paul does a good deal of defining what he means by justifying faith; that should guide our definition of “living faith.” What do you suppose Paul means, Bryan, when he says, “Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness…”? It’s quite clear that while true faith is living and works by love, that God’s declaration of justification is not *because* of the life or works (“to the one who does not work but believes“), but simply *because* faith (apart from works) unites to Christ and his righteousness. I’m very interested in your exegesis of Romans 4:4-5. Maybe that’s a good place to focus.
On a personal level, Bryan, how do you find the time?! You are always to quick to reply and your responses are rarely short. You must have some serious free time!
Christina, thanks for the question about forgiveness of sins. First off, call us “plowmen” … “plowboys” is an offensive term! 🙂 Just kidding.
The forgiveness issue is similar to the “he who hears you hears me” issue. According to my understanding, both have been abused by the Roman church. As to hearing, what Jesus means is that he’s sending out his 72 as his emissaries to preach his message of the Kingdom. He didn’t send them out to make stuff up and have his authority for their fictions. Similarly with forgiveness, Jesus’ ministers are to be… ministers. They’re not given the task to make up who gets forgiven and who doesn’t as their own discression, they’re to minister Christ’s forgiveness on Christ’s terms. The minister of forgiveness doesn’t just get to hand it out whenever and however he wants. He is to do so according to Christ’s explicit rules. In other words, he grants forgiveness in a ministerial and declarative fashion.
Maybe that’s more satisfactory than Johnny Mac’s explanation.
Bryan,
Why do sign, “In the peace of Christ,” when your faith tradition does not allow its adherents to know whether they are eternally reconciled to God? Do you have a feeling of peace? With God, of God? Just curious.
Hugh,
Because we can know that we are at peace with God. If you define ‘at peace with God’ as precluding the possibility of apostasy, then you merely stipulate that all those who believe in the possibility of apostasy don’t have peace with God. But again, that’s just to beg the question by way of a stipulative definition.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
“At peace with God for the time being” might be more accurate, then?
Hugh,
At peace with God for eternity, Lord willing. St. Paul writes, “Therefore let him who thinks he stands take heed that he does not fall.” (1 Cor 10:12) Such taking heed would be needless if his doctrine entailed that it was impossible to fall away.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
Therefore, being justified by faith, we have peace with God (Rom. 5:1).
In the peace of Christ
right now
for the time being
as far as I know
if I keep up my devotion to the BVM, etc.
Thanks, Bryan.
Now we better understand that for you, “In the peace of Christ” means, “At peace with God for eternity, Lord willing.”
No need to be skimpy on the cites, Bryan.
From your St Chas Borromeo site:
PART ONE ~ THE PROFESSION OF FAITH
ARTICLE 2 ~ THE TRANSMISSION OF DIVINE REVELATION
II. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TRADITION AND SACRED SCRIPTURE
One common source. . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”
And our canons differ here too:
IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE
120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.
So y’all have 72 or 73 books.
The Bible has but 66.
Hugh,
Just wondering…but how do you know the Bible has 66? There’s nothing in Scripture that says it. When was it decided that the Bible had 66 books?
So, we have 73 books. We can point to the Magisterium that tells us. We can also point to the Septuagint that had these books.
Who tells you that you have 66?
Hugh, I have toddlers resisting bedtime so I’ll resort to leaving links re: the deuterocanon and its acceptance by Catholics:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book.html
Part II:
http://catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2012/06/defending-deuterocanon-book-by-book_28.html
CORRECTION: Revelation 22:18 (not 18:18) was the correct cite: For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book.
66 books, not 72 or 73.
Dennis,
On the canon: B/c Zondervan told me so. 😉
On grace: Oh, stop being silly. Of course you can’t be a good RC and believe in God’s efficacious salvific grace alone being received by his elect through faith [sans works] alone in Christ [no saints’ merits allowed!] alone.
Grace is God’s disposition toward his elect. Eph. 2:8ff and all that. Not some divine assistance to give you potential. Y’all hope to avoid Hell and cut time in Purgatory with man-made “faith + works = justification” scheme.
We KNOW that we HAVE eternal life (a la 1 John 5:13) because of our graciously bequeathed God-given faith alone in Christ alone.
Hugh,
On the canon: B/c Zondervan told me so.
Fair enough!
Y’all hope to avoid Hell and cut time in Purgatory with man-made “faith + works = justification” scheme.
I hope to avoid Hell and Purgatory by being obedient to Christ in all things. I hope to be saved through my Baptism (per 1 Peter 3:12) from which I enter into the Body of Christ (per 1 Corinthians 12:13). I hope to be saved by remaining in His Body. Within the Body of Christ, I am saved. Only Christ can save me. Outside of His Body, there is no salvation.
We KNOW that we HAVE eternal life (a la 1 John 5:13) because of our graciously bequeathed God-given faith alone in Christ alone.
So…in 1 John 5:13, John says that he “writes these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life…” What does he write?
1 John is a letter reminding us not to sin. It reminds us to love one another. It reminds us to be obedient to Christ.
It reminds us that “God is love, and whoever remains in love remain in God and God in him.”
It’s telling us not to sin but to remain in Christ.
That is how we have eternal life. Complete obedience to Christ.
Tim,
I’m signing off for the evening.
These boys -oops, mariolaters- will parse us to death.
Goodnight.
Dennis, see my discussion with Bryan. The Romanist “affirms” these passages the way the Pharisee “affirmed” that a child was commanded to honor his father and mother. Outward, verbal “affirmation” is worthless (actually, far worse than worthless, for it is hypocritical in the vile extreme), when one’s actual practice undermines what is *actually* revealed by God in the Scripture.
I’m beginning to see very clearly the Roman tactic of “affirmation.” It is an altogether weak defense for the traditions that undermine the commands of God. Repent and conform to God’s sure revelation in the Scripture. Men’s traditions are weak, but God’s word stands forever.</i?
Tim,
No, a Catholic is different than a Pharisee. All this is telling me is you’re not grasping what Mark 7:1-7 is explaining. Jesus is being critical of the Pharisees for they are forgetting the one commandment (Mark 7:8) and are clinging to human tradition.
Per Christ–and Moses–the greatest commandment is to love the Lord your God with all your heart (Luke 10:27). Everything should be done out of love for God. Jesus tells us, “if you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). We follow the Church’s teachings out of love for God. The Pharisees were not doing this. They were twisting the commandments not out of love for God but rather to cling to the tradition. They were not honoring their father and mother, but rather teaching, “abandon your parents and give the money to the temple” (Mark 7:11) There is a large difference. So, we follow the Church out of love for Christ. We submit ourselves to the will of our Lord in His Church because we love Him and will die for Him. We love Christ with our entire beings and reflect His love to other people. This is what Scripture tells us to do.
Now, there may be Catholics who “cling to tradition” and fast because the Church tells them to and then give a jaundiced look at their neighbor as they “eat with unclean hands.” This is wrong and they should be chastised the way Christ chastises the Pharisees.
In regards to Romans 4:5. Yes, I agree (affirm) with this. Paul is explaining that Abraham was justified not through the circumcision but through believing the promise of God (before he was circumcised per Romans 4:11-12). The faith of Abraham was not just “believing.” It was being completely obedient to God. When God said, “Pick up and move…” Abraham moved. When God said, “Go and circumcise…” Abraham did it. When God said, “Go and sacrifice your son…” Abraham did that too. When God said stop! Abraham stopped.
That’s the faith of Abraham. That’s what Paul is trying to tell us. It’s complete obedience to God. It’s complete trust in God that even when he would sacrifice his son, he would still be the “Father of Nations” How would that be possible when he was sacrificing his son? That is what God is asking of us. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church. To be completely obedient to Christ in all things.
I don’t believe any Reformed teacher would argue that the gift of faith given by God would he void of obedience – but that doesn’t mean we should conflate the fruit of faith in obedience with what the Scriptures explicitly States as the cause of justification – namely faith.
Also, I think its a real error to ascribe complete obedience to any save Christ. It doesn’t take much reading in Genesis to find examples of Abraham being somewhat less than completely obedient.
Jason,
what the Scriptures explicitly States as the cause of justification – namely faith.
What you’re saying is directly in conflict with James 2:21-26. The cause of justification is not simply faith alone. Abraham is credited as righteousness due to his faith completed by the works.
Paul tells us that one of the key points in Romans is to “bring about the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5). He want the “obedience of faith” made known to all the nations and he uses Romans to bring that about (Romans 16:26). Paul uses Abraham to show as an example of what it means to have an obedience of faith. It’s not through the Mosaic law but rather in obedience to God in faith that saves us.
I think its a real error to ascribe complete obedience to any save Christ
That’s great except that’s not what Scripture tells us. Scripture explains in Hebrews 13:17 that we must be obedient to our spiritual leaders. Scripture also tells us that we should obey our parents–in the Lord. (Ephesians 6:1). Most importantly we should be obedient to the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ. The Church is the authority because the Church is Christ’s representative on earth.
Hi Dennis,
You’re still conflating the two things.
James paints a picture of true faith which is accompanied by works over a false proclaimed faith that shows no fruit. This is easily seen when the epistle is read in context.
James 2:14 – can such a faith save him? The answer of course is no. So when the verse is viewed in context along with the clear teaching of the rest of Scriptures (Rom. 3:28, Rom. 4:5, Gal. 2:16, Eph. 2:8-9, etc.) the Reformed teaching stands fast and clear, while the RC teaching begs off all the other passages that state explicitly “it’s faith only, and not of works”.
Regarding obedience, I think you completely missed my point. I said that it is error to ascribe complete obedience to any save Christ. Somehow you got out of that statement that the Bible doesn’t tell us to be obedient. Of course it does. If I believed it did not, I would have said so. Was Abraham obedient? Yes. Was he completely obedient to God? The Biblical accounts of Abraham + Haran, Egypt, and Ishmael clearly show otherwise. So I will state again – complete obedience to God is found only in Jesus Christ – and Christ alone and saying otherwise is error.
Jason,
Thanks for the response. I’m curious as to what the Reformed definition of Faith is. I gave my understanding. Just wondering if we are on the same page.
In regards to obedience, yes. I missed your point. Christ had perfect obedience. From a Catholic perspective, I would argue that Mary had perfect obedience as well but that’s a different argument for a different day.
Christ is calling us to be obedient to Him. Granted, we fail daily, however, that is our calling. Should we fail, we seek forgiveness and continue to be obedient. This is very evident in Scripture.
In regards to Abraham, I don’t see where he’s disobedient to God. Can you cite a passage?
Dennis, ya said, I hope to avoid Hell and Purgatory by being obedient to Christ in all things.
I’ll avoid hell b/c Christ paid for all my sins and God reckons me righteous in Christ thorough faith alone. Purg’y don’t exist.
I hope to be saved through my Baptism (per 1 Peter 3:12) from which I enter into the Body of Christ (per 1 Corinthians 12:13).
Water baptism saves no one. Peter says it’s by regeneration (H2O baptism pictures this; doesn’t effect it; washing with water the filth of the flesh and all that).
I hope to be saved by remaining in His Body. Within the Body of Christ, I am saved. Only Christ can save me. Outside of His Body, there is no salvation.
Again, for us, such salvation is not potential; it is certain.We KNOW that we HAVE eternal life (a la 1 John 5:13) because of our graciously bequeathed God-given faith alone in Christ alone.
So…in 1 John 5:13, John says that he “writes these things to you so that you may know that you have eternal life…” What does he write? 1 John is a letter reminding us not to sin. It reminds us to love one another. It reminds us to be obedient to Christ. It reminds us that “God is love, and whoever remains in love remain in God and God in him.” It’s telling us not to sin but to remain in Christ.
1st John tells us many things, ’tis true. One is that we can know that we have eternal life!
That is how we have eternal life. Complete obedience to Christ.
All the merits of all the “saints’ treasure”
all the masses ever said
all the indulgences ever granted
all the fastings, mortifications, etc.,
all the Marian devotion in the Rosary,
all the adherence to every jot of papal law,
can never atone for sin,
and will never bring comfort to one’s soul.
ONLY the blood of Jesus Christ
received by faith alone
can cleanse away sin & its guilt.
Dennis,
More from 1st John (4:12ff) No one has seen God at any time. If we love one another, God abides in us, and His love has been perfected in us. By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit. And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son as Savior of the world. Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment; because as He is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves torment. But he who fears has not been made perfect in love. We love Him because He first loved us.
And from 5:9ff ~ If we receive the witness of men [even churchmen?], the witness of God is greater; for this is the witness of God which He has testified of His Son. He who believes in the Son of God has the witness in himself; he who does not believe God has made Him a liar, because he has not believed the testimony that God has given of His Son. And this is the testimony: that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may continue to believe in the name of the Son of God.
It’s a matter of HAVING life or NOT having life. Not of having life one minute, and clinging to it via church-approved works, else you “lose” that life. You either have it or you don’t.
He who has the Son HAS life; he who does not have the Son of God does NOT have life.
Faith without works is dead. Something cannot die if it was not once living.
If you stop equating the word “men” with “big bad Romanists,” you might be better able to grasp Catholic soteriology. You keep flinging bible verses into the mix as if we’ve never considered them.
Christina,
Paul tells us that before salvation in Christ we were “dead in the trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). Given your assertion that dead cannot be used in a metaphoric sense but must literally mean the loss of once existing life – at what point before salvation were we alive from our trespasses and sins if the whole point is that we were dead before Christ saved us by grace?
Jason, I think humanity was alive in Adam but then died in him. I don’t think Christina’s comment that “something cannot die if it was not once living” applies to dead faith. The text says not that faith died, but that it is dead. Something can be “dead” in may senses, which would certainly include being dead without having been alive prior. A “dead” faith is no evangelical faith at all, to be sure. But I don’t think that James means to teach that faith can die. Rather, he means to teach that a faith that does not work in love is a sham, a fake, mere assent to propositions. True, evangelical faith is a gift of God that comes with the gift of regeneration, which is necessarily a living faith.
Hi Jason,
(I have no idea where this reply will end up. The combox trees are getting complex! Apologies.)
I found your comment re: Eph 2:1 to be confusing because admittedly, I’ve never correlated the verse with my original point (that which can die must first be living). To be fair though, I’m not trying to correlate them either. Eph 2:1 is a statement about the nature of man in light of Christ and my comment (not from Scripture but just a logic analogy) is that once saved, it would make sense that we can still fall away from our salvation in accordance with the book of James. “Dead faith” was alive at one point. I didn’t mean to correlate those ideas but I see where you were going with it.
He who has the Son HAS life; he who does not have the Son of God does NOT have life.
Again, you’re missing the point of 1 John. He who loves God and keeps His commandments has the Son. He who has the Son (ie keeps His Commandments) HAS life.
He who does NOT keep His commandments is a sinner and does not have life.
You can’t just cherry pick the verses you like. You have to read the whole book. This is what it says.
Hugh,
This is obviously where we depart in our understanding of justification and righteousness.
Romans 6:1-8 explains that we were baptized into Christ’s death so that we may rise with Him in new life. Our resurrection depends on our Baptism per Paul.
It’s not faith alone. We need to be Baptized into Christ. You don’t need to convince me. Convince Paul.
1st John tells us many things, ’tis true. One is that we can know that we have eternal life!
1st John says: The way we may be sure that we know him is to keep his commandments. (1 John 2:3).
We keep Christ’s commandments, we know that we have eternal life.
Thanks Dennis. Obviously.
Baptism into Christ is a sovereign, spiritual work of God, not a physical bath or sprinkling by a priest.
We keep Christ’s commandments, we know that we have eternal life.
Our obedience is evidence of our justification & redemption & salvation, not a causative factor thereof.
Hugh,
At Baptism, we receive the grace and are united to the Body of Christ. We become adopted sons and daughters of Christ and our sins are forgiven.
It doesn’t have to be done by a priest. A Protestant Baptism is indeed valid provided it’s done as per Scripture.
Our obedience is evidence of our justification & redemption & salvation, not a causative factor thereof.
Our obedience is our evidence of our love for Christ. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. We love Christ with all of our hearts and have faith in his words that we will be saved.
However, we must work out our salvation with “fear and trembling” while being obedient (Philippians 2:12).
Salvation is the work of God. There is nothing we can do to assure ourselves salvation. We can only love Christ, be obedient to Him and have faith in His words that we will be saved. Our salvation is only in Him though. We must unite ourselves to Him in Baptism as He is saved. So, it’s through Him, with Him, and in Him that we are saved. Outside of Him, we are dead in our transgressions.
So the seemingly implacable Mr. Cross is finally placated over a colloquialism that he needed to take as an incredible insult. Well, it won’t be the last absurd concession that he’ll demand. Proselytizers for the Pope won’t rest till they have you arguing squarely on their ground. Very much like what happened with Stellman.
Boys will be boys, Locirari. 🙂
And popish CTC persons -converts from the Reformed Faith- will wax worse and worse.
“It had been better,” saith Pope Peter I, “for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.”
“For,” saith he, “if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning…
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.” {2 Peter 2:21, 20, 22}
Christina,
You quote MacDaddy’s* note: the believer can boldly declare the certainty of a sinner’s forgiveness by the Father because of the work of His Son if that sinner has repented and believed the gospel.
And you “find this wholly unsatisfying.” Sorry.
Perhaps the reason or a reason for your dissatisfaction is that you want a priest or higher-up to absolve you and speak God’s peace to you – completely understandable for any of of us sinners to so desire peace and reconciliation with Almighty, Holy God.
But this comes only thought the blood of Jesus Christ his Son alone (deliberate redundancy for effect). The priest/ pastor/ evangelist/ peacemaker can do this only through proclaiming the good news that God has reconciled all who trust in Christ alone for all time!
* Ironically, a sort of Protestant pope, himself.
You did not answer my question in the slightest.
what question from yesterday @ 10:05, please?
CORRECTION: Absolution, peace, & reconciliation come only through the blood of Jesus Christ his Son alone (deliberate redundancy for effect). The priest/ pastor/ evangelist/ peacemaker can do this only through proclaiming the good news that God has reconciled all who trust in Christ alone for all time!
Christina,
Faith without works is dead. Something cannot die if it was not once living.
But something can be DOA, as we all are upon conception, never having had life. False professors of faith (sans works) never had life. James doesn’t say they HAD faith and then died.
If you stop equating the word “men” with “big bad Romanists,” you might be better able to grasp Catholic soteriology.
I don’t understand this.
You keep flinging bible verses into the mix as if we’ve never considered them.
No, I “fling” ’em in because they are Spirit and they are life.
I “fling” ’em ’cause y’all don’t rightly understand them!
Give me an example of something that is dead that was never alive in the first place. I can’t come up with any examples from nature, anyway.
Again: All of mankind from physical conception are spiritually dead. We never have life until it is given us of God.
We were born dead spiritually (Eph 2:1, Ps 51:5, Rom. 5:12) – surely your catechist taught you this!
I’m speaking of eternal security. Specifically, I’m pointing out that “faith without works is dead” is interpreted correctly by the Catholic Church in that we reject the notion of eternal security.
Hugh, re: your comment to me @10:33:
I asked Tim the following question:
“Could you elaborate on this?: Christ himself did not establish secret confessions to a human priest, as you humorously assert. John 20:23 says nothing of priestly absolution. You are very clearly *adding* a great deal to the text to come up with mandated, secret confession to a priest.
…
I’m specifically wondering how Luther’s “plowboys” could interpret this any differently from the Catholic position without employing some serious mental gymnastics.”
Hugh, you simply restated Tim’s original point and then added your thoughts on my inner motivations for wanting the verse to translate to confession to a priest. Not what I asked. I want an explanation of the Reformed interpretation of 20:23. Your interpretation should be so clear that “even a ployboy could understand it.” MacArthur’s explanation is not.
Thanks, Christina. If I may be so bold as to interrupt Tim’s reply (which he’s no doubt composing as we post)…
Then said Jesus to them again, “Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
This proves too much – all believers are given the Spirit. No mention is made of special apostolic succession in Scripture. That is a tradition of men. We remit sins and retain sins as we proclaim the finished work of Christ to sinners. The elect get ’em remitted, the reprobate have ’em retained. Simple enough?
Matthew 18:15ff ~ Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
No priest mentioned here. The believers have the Spirit of discernment. We can even administer church discipline (the use of the keys) without priest or pope. That was part of MacDaddy’s point.
Thank you Hugh, I appreciate your time in explaining.
You said that this verse indicates that all believers are given the ability to remit and retain sins. As you said, “The elect get ‘em remitted, the reprobate have ‘em retained.” Sure that’s simple, but I don’t believe its true. You state that 20:23 does not specifically state anything about apostolic succession. I don’t see any evidence to the contrary, either. This verse alone is not really enough to “prove” either of our points.
Off to work now. I’ll be back online tonight.
Christina,
“Dead faith” was alive at one point.
Where is that in either Scripture or Tradition? Why does that bogus, non-salvific “faith” have to ever have been alive?
My contention is that it is “dead faith” as in “non-living faith,” as in “never-was-alive faith.”
~~~~~~~~~~
And, by your reckoning, it was an absolutely orthodox faith the person held, but because they did not persevere nor continue in good works, they were not justified by God, correct?
Could they possibly get into purgatory (acc. to Tradition, canons, decrees, councils, etc.), or would they be necessarily lost to Hell?
Dennis,
If you are a devout Roman Catholic, we are NOT going to agree.
BTW: Are you a CTC convert from the Reformed faith, a revert, a cradle Catholic, or a…?
To your points:
D: At Baptism, we receive the grace and are united to the Body of Christ. We become adopted sons and daughters of Christ and our sins are forgiven.
Nope. Only by the new birth, which is NOT tied to water baptism.
H: Our obedience is evidence of our justification & redemption & salvation, not a causative factor thereof.
D: Our obedience is our evidence of our love for Christ. If you love me, you will keep my commandments. We love Christ with all of our hearts and have faith in his words that we will be saved.
So, how are we differing here? Do you disagree that “our obedience is evidence of our justification & redemption & salvation, not a causative factor thereof”?
Hugh,
Yes, I agree that we are not going to agree. I’m really not out to convert people to Catholicism. I do accept that Catholicism is the fullness of Truth. But at the same time, what I’m saying should be accepted by all faiths as it’s readily evident in Scripture. Additionally, if a Protestant isn’t grasping this, they will never understand Catholicism.
I am a cradle Catholic. My first 20 some odd years not really understanding Catholic teaching (despite 12 years of Catholic school). I spent my college years really fighting the Church (from within) believing that they didn’t know what they were talking about and finally having a conversion experience in my twenties (about fifteen years ago). I don’t know the CTC guys aside from interacting with Bryan a small handful of times on different blogs and I’ve only been on their site a few times. I do think it’s good but I’m not the target audience and my understanding of Reformed Theology isn’t strong enough to grasp their points at times.
Nope. Only by the new birth, which is NOT tied to water baptism.
The new birth is our water baptism. John 3:5 explains that nobody can enter the kingdom of God without being orn of “water and Spirit.” Jesus is specifically talking about Baptism at this point to Nicodemus.
At our Baptism, we “walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:4). In our Baptism, our old bodies were “circumcised” …stripped off and nailed to the cross…forgiving us of our transgressions (Colossians 2:11-13).
So, how are we differing here? Do you disagree that “our obedience is evidence of our justification & redemption & salvation, not a causative factor thereof”?
Evidence of our justification, redemption, and salvation is the Cross at Calvary. It’s God being nailed to a Tree. He did that for us so that we may have eternal life.
In 1 John, John refers to an “anointing” and after that anointing to “remain in Him.” (1 John 2:27) John is referring to their Baptism which is what they need. From that point, as children (1 John 2;28/1 John 3:1), remain in Him and avoid sin (1 John 3:4-8). So, we need to be Baptized, be obedient to Christ, and avoid sin.
At that point, we know we can know we are saved.
Thanks, Dennis.
Study Reformed theology and the Reformation, when you have the time.
Your RCC is not right on justification or salvation. http://www.BereanBeacon.org is a good web site.
For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. {Ephesians 2:8ff}
And read Romans. A lot.
Pax.
Thanks Hugh.
I’ve read Romans multiple times and I’ve been to the Berean Beacon site.
Earlier up the chain, Tim referred to Mark 7:1-13. The point of that story wasn’t about dietary law but rather what is unholy is what comes out of a person rather than what goes in. I think the stuff coming out of Berean Beacon is garbage and you should avoid reading it.
Jason Stellman at one time had a picture of Hitler with a Catholic bishop on his blog. He’s now converting to the Catholic Church. Maybe he should read Berean Beacon so he know what he’s getting himself into.
OK Dennis.
Reread Romans, please.
You’ve not read it enough, apparently.