Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Tim Challies says Pope Francis is a false teacher, but misunderstandsCatholic view of justification.

You can read it here. I had heard of Tim Challies years ago. And I may have actually met or corresponded with him at some point in the past, but I do not recall.  He seems like a nice guy, and I have no doubt that he is a devoted pastor, husband, and father.

In any event, I bring his blog post to your attention, since it serves as an excellent example of a talented writer misunderstanding the Catholic view on justification. Although there is more to Challies' judgment of the Holy Father than his negative assessment of Catholic soteriology, my focus will be on that assessment. Writes Challies:

Roman Catholic doctrine states that justification is infused into a person through the sacrament of baptism. The Catholic Catechism explains: “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ. It is granted us through Baptism. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who justifies us.” However, this justification is not a judicial declaration by God, but the beginning of a lifelong process of conformity. It is insufficient to save a person without the addition of good works. This infusion of righteousness enables a person to do the good works that complete justification. However, this justification can be diminished or even lost through sinful acts and in such cases it must be renewed and regained through confession, through the Eucharist, and through good works. Those who have been granted justification eventually merit heaven on the basis of the good works enabled by that justification. Again, according to the Catechism, “We can therefore hope in the glory of heaven promised by God to those who love him and do his will. In every circumstance, each one of us should hope, with the grace of God, to persevere ‘to the end’ and to obtain the joy of heaven, as God’s eternal reward for the good works accomplished with the grace of Christ.” This is another gospel, a false gospel, that adds human merit as a necessary addition to the work of Christ.

Not only does Challies get the Catholic view of justification wrong, he fails to note that the way that the Church presents its understanding of justification is in continuity with the work of St. Augustine, The Canons of the Council of Orange, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Council of Trent. I document this in an article I published last summer, “Doting Thomists: Evangelicals, Thomas Aquinas, and Justification,” The Evangelical Quarterly 85.3 (July 2013): 211-227.  Here's an excerpt (notes omitted):
The Council [of Orange, AD 529], with papal sanction, rejected Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism as heretical doctrines. The first, having its origin in the Catholic monk Pelagius (ca. 354–ca. 420/440), affirms that human beings do not inherit Adam’s sin (and thus denies the doctrine of original sin) and by their free will may achieve salvation without God’s grace. On the other hand, semi-Pelagianism maintains that a human being, though weakened by original sin, may make the initial act of will toward achieving salvation prior to receiving the necessary assistance of God’s grace. The Council of Orange, in contrast, argued that Adam’s original sin is inherited by his progeny and can only be removed by the sacrament of Baptism. By the means of Baptism God’s unmerited grace is infused for the remission of sins. According to the Council, justification is not the consequence of our initiative and then God assisting us by extending to us his mercy. Rather, ‘God himself’, writes the Council, ‘first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of Baptism, and after Baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.’ Thus, the Christian’s inner transformation continues throughout his lifetime, entirely the work of the infusion of grace with which the Christian cooperates, for the Christian ‘does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it’.

It is not surprising, then, that one finds in Aquinas an account of grace and justification that embodies what his predecessors, including Augustine and the Council of Orange, embraced. Like the Council, Aquinas rejected Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and affirmed baptismal regeneration:  "According to the CatholicFaith we are bound to hold that the first sin of the first man is transmitted to his descendants, by way of origin. For this reason children are taken to be baptized soon after their birth, to show that they have to be washed from some uncleanness. The contrary is part of the Pelagian heresy, as is clear from Augustine in many of his books.... As the Apostle says (Romans 5:15-16), the sin of Adam was not so far-reaching as the gift of Christ, which is bestowed in Baptism: ‘for judgment was by one unto condemnation; but grace is of many offenses, unto justification’. Wherefore Augustine says in his book on Infant Baptism (De Pecc. Merit. et Remiss. i), that "in carnal generation, original sin alone is contracted; but when we are born again of the Spirit, not only original sin but also wilful sin is forgiven".' [Aquinas, Summa Theologica II.I, Q81, art1, III, Q69, art1]

Like the Council of Orange (along with Augustine), Aquinas maintains that regeneration is wholly gratuitous... But Aquinas does so in line with his predecessors’ understanding of the role of sanctifying grace in both conversion and the Christian life. This means that infused grace is not only required for the Christian’s entry into the family of God at Baptism but also for her subsequent movement toward being conformed to the image of Christ. Consider, for example, Aquinas’s explanation of sanctifying grace as ‘habitual grace’. It has, he writes, ‘a double effect of grace, even as of every other form; the first of which is ‘being’, and the second, ‘operation’. For example, ‘the work of heat is to make its subject hot, and to give heat outwardly. And thus habitual grace, inasmuch as it heals and justifies the soul, or makes it pleasing to God, is called operating grace; but inasmuch as it is the principle of meritorious works, which spring from the free-will, it is called cooperating grace.’ Because God is the sole mover in the infusion of habitual grace, it is entirely attributable to Him. This is called operating grace. But if habitual grace is supposed to heal and justify the soul, and the soul has by nature certain powers to think and act, then this healing and justification must manifest itself in the activities of the soul. Thus, these acts allow us to cooperate with God for our inward transformation. This Aquinas calls cooperating grace, since any meritorious acts performed by a soul infused with habitual grace by God would lack merit without that grace and thus without God’s cooperation. He writes: ‘God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace.’

For Aquinas, justification refers not only to the Christian’s initial entrance into the family of God at Baptism – which is administered for the remission of sins – but to the intrinsic work of both the infusion of that grace at Baptism and all the subsequent graces that work in concert to transform the Christian from the inside out. This is possible only because the baptized Christian literally partakes in the Divine Nature as a consequence of being infused with sanctifying grace. Consequently, for Aquinas, justification and sanctification are not different events, one extrinsic and the other intrinsic, as the Protestant Reformers taught. Rather, ‘sanctification’ is the ongoing intrinsic work of justifying, or making rightly-ordered, the Christian by means of God’s grace, the same grace that intrinsically changed the believer at the moment of her initial ‘justification’ (i.e., at Baptism) into an adopted child of the Father. Writes Aquinas, ‘Augustine says (De Gratia et Lib. Arbit. xvii): ‘God by cooperating with us, perfects what He began by operating in us, since He who perfects by cooperation with such as are willing, beings by operating that they may will’. But the operations of God ‘whereby He moves us to good pertain to grace. Therefore grace is fittingly divided into operating and cooperating’. For Aquinas, justification is as much about getting heaven into us as it is about getting us into heaven....

Although it is clear that Aquinas’s account of justification is in historical continuity with those of his predecessors, what about its continuity with his successors in the Catholic Church? According to the Proto-Protestant Thomists, the accounts of justification articulated by the Council of Trent and in the Catholic Church’s 1994 Catechism are not only inconsistent with the views of the Protestant Reformers – as one would expect – they are also inconsistent with Aquinas’s perspective. In fact, as I have already noted, [the late Reformed theologian John] Gerstner went so far as to say that Aquinas ‘taught the biblical doctrine of justification so that if the Roman Church had followed Aquinas the Reformation would not have been absolutely necessary’.

[R.C.] Sproul, for instance, claims that Trent’s account of justification ‘appeared, at least to the Reformers, to retreat to the semi-Pelagian position that, though the human will is weakened by the fall, it still has the spiritual power to incline itself toward grace’.  In making his case for Tridentine semi-Pelagianism, Sproul quotes the following passage from chapter V of Trent’s sixth session: "It is furthermore declared that in adults the beginning of that justification must proceed from the predisposing grace of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits on their part, they are called; that they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and cooperating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight."

Commenting on this passage, Sproul writes: ‘Here Rome makes it clear that fallen man cannot convert himself or even move himself to justice in God’s sight without the aid of grace. Again Pelagianism is repudiated.’ Thus, it seems that Sproul is saying that Trent, like Aquinas and Orange, maintained that regeneration precedes faith. Nevertheless, Sproul goes on to claim: ‘This predisposing grace, however, is rejectable. It is not in itself effectual. Its effectiveness depends on the fallen person’s assent and cooperation. This sounds very much like semi-Pelagianism, which had been condemned at Orange’.

As for the Catechism, Sproul offers this passage from it as evidence of its semi-Pelagianism: ‘God's free initiative demands man’s free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him.’ Commenting on this passage, Sproul writes that ‘to avoid the Reformation and Augustinian view of the enslaved will, Rome speaks of the power of fallen man to assent to and cooperate with prevenient grace. That grace is not effectual without the sinner’s response.’

Although what Sproul is affirming may be good Reformed theology, his reliance on Trent and the Catechism to make his case undermines his Proto-Protestant Thomism. First, the Council of Orange, whose canons Sproul embraces as orthodox and biblical, treats God’s grace in a fashion almost identical to the way Trent understands it: ‘According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through Baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul’. (emphasis added) This is because, according to Orange, ‘[t]he freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of Baptism’, which, like Trent and the Catechism, presents Baptism as the instrumental cause of justification. So, if a free Adam can reject God, and our liberty has been restored to be like Adam’s, then it makes sense for Orange to declare that the salvation of our souls is conditioned upon our ‘desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul’. And yet, the council proclaims, ‘for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so’. And like Trent, Orange employs the language of infusion to describe how grace works in Baptism and the subsequent life of the believer including his cooperation.

Both Orange and Trent employ Jesus’s vine and branches account of His relationship to His Church (John 15:1-17) in order to explain the relationship between operating and cooperating grace and the role of faith and works in a believer’s salvation. The Council of Orange writes: ‘Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff)’. And given that grace, we ‘have the ability and responsibility, if [we] desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of [our] soul’. Over a millennium after Orange, the Church affirmed at Trent: "For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its [due] time, provided they depart [this life] in grace…."

Not surprisingly, the Catechism offers an understanding of justification that is consistent with both Orange and Trent. Like the two councils, the Catechism affirms the absolute gratuitousness of God’s movement of the human will: ‘The first work of the grace of the Holy Spirit is conversion, effecting justification in accordance with Jesus’s proclamation at the beginning of the Gospel: “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”[Matthew 4:17]. Moved by grace, man turns toward God and away from sin, thus accepting forgiveness and righteousness from on high’. And like Orange and Trent, the Catechism uses the language of cooperating grace in its account of human merit and the role it plays in justification: ‘The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. The fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man’s free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man’s merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit’. Oddly, [Norman L.] Geisler quotes a sliver of this passage – ‘the merit of good works is attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful’ (his emphasis) – and then concludes, ‘Hence, it is grace plus good works’, even though in context that is not what the Catechism is saying.

It seems to me that Geisler’s blind spot, one he shares with Gerstner and Sproul, is the consequence of abandoning the idea of participation in the Divine Nature, a view more explicitly taught in the Eastern Churches, though certainly essential to the West’s idea of justification as well. According to the Catholic view, sanctifying grace allows us to participate in the divine life. Thus, when we act in charity, we do not contribute to our justification, as if it were merely a case of God adding up our deeds on a cosmic balance sheet. This is why the Catechism teaches, ‘The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness’. (Does that sound like ‘grace plus good works’?) Consequently, one's cooperation does not take away from the fact that justification is a work of God, just as Christ’s human nature does not take away from the fact he is also fully God, and just as the Bible being authored by human beings does not diminish its stature as entirely God’s Word.

Second, because neither Trent nor the Catechism departs from Orange, and because Aquinas’s account of justification is in line with Orange as well (as I noted earlier in this article), it should not surprise us to learn that Trent, the Catechism, and Aquinas are in agreement on the doctrine of justification.

As we have seen, Aquinas held that one’s entry into the Body of Christ is the consequence of operating grace, wholly the work of God, and Trent and the Catechism maintain that position as well. The effect of grace, according to Aquinas, is to heal and justify the will so that the human being may freely partake in the Divine Nature and undergo transformation. Thus, any meritorious acts in which a soul infused with God’s grace freely engages could not be meritorious without that grace and thus without God’s cooperation (hence Aquinas calls it ‘cooperating grace’). For this reason, as I have already noted above, Aquinas writes that ‘God does not justify us without ourselves, because whilst we are being justified we consent to God's justification [justitiae] by a movement of our free-will. Nevertheless this movement is not the cause of grace, but the effect; hence the whole operation pertains to grace’. Hence, Sproul’s claim that such grace is ‘not effectual without the sinner’s response’ begs the question, since its intended effect is to heal and justify the soul of a particular sort of being, one that is a moral agent with the intrinsic power to respond or not to respond. In that sense, the grace is most certainly effectual. Unsurprisingly, Augustine concurs with the Catechism and Aquinas, but according to Sproul the purpose of the Catechism’s account of grace was ‘to avoid the… Augustinian view of the enslaved will’. So, apparently, either it did not succeed or Augustine is not Augustinian.

Thus, it should come as no surprise that Aquinas (following Augustine), Trent and the Catechism are in continuity in their understanding of the relationship between justification, sanctifying grace, and the infusion of faith, hope, and charity. The Catechism declares: ‘Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or ‘justice’) here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us’. Consistent with this, Trent affirms: ‘[M]an through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives in that justification, together with the remission of sins, all these infused at the same time, namely, faith, hope and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body’. And for Aquinas, ‘charity denotes union with God, whereas faith and hope do not’, and ‘grace is neither faith nor hope, for these can be without sanctifying grace’. Aquinas writes in his Commentary on Romans: ‘[T]he act of faith, which is to believe, depends on the intellect and on the will moving the intellect to assent. Hence, the act of faith will be perfect, if the will is perfected by the habit of charity and the intellect by the habit of faith, but not if the habit of charity is lacking’.The indwelling of Christ ‘is not perfect, unless faith is formed by charity, which by the bond of perfection unites us to God, as Col 3(:14) says’.

I want to conclude by making an observation about a passage in Challies' post that struck me as one the most peculiar claims I have read in quite some time. He writes: "Even while Francis washes the feet of prisoners and kisses the faces of the deformed, he does so out of and toward this false gospel that leads not toward Christ, but directly away from him." Apparently, according to Challies, following Jesus by obeying his commandments is no way to lead people to our Lord. But that's not what I read in the gospels:
Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand: Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me to drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you covered me: sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the just answer him, saying: Lord, when did we see thee hungry, and fed thee; thirsty, and gave thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and covered thee? Or when did we see thee sick or in prison, and came to thee? And the king answering, shall say to them: Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me. (Mt. 25:34-40)


me, myself & I r all here said...

one would think, perhaps, that something about francis in these public actions bothers our brother challies?

Dan said...

How does Challies "get the Catholic view of justification wrong" in the quoted passage? I admittedly only skimmed your excerpt, but that seemed to deal more with what Challies "fails to note" about the Catholic view.

Jenn Baerg said...

Thank you for responding to this point that Challies demonstrated his lack of understanding, the post seemed to imply that anyone who does not hold the Calvinist understanding of justification and sanctification clearly believes a false gospel and I would like to believe that was not his intention.

Neil Parille said...

" “Even while Francis washes the feet of prisoners and kisses the faces of the deformed, he does so out of and toward this false gospel that leads not toward Christ, but directly away from him.” Apparently, according to Challies, following Jesus by obeying his commandments is no way to lead people to our Lord."
But isn't it possible to good things for bad or mistaken reasons?
Personally, I find Jorge a little tiring. Bring back the old pope, who didn't go around telling everyone how humble he was.

accelerator said...

Surely you are extremely familiar with this argument: Rome makes works part of the equation and says you cannot be saved without them. That is really all Challies is saying, and then rightly concluding that if he is correct, by Protestant standards Pope Francis misleads. I don't see how that is remotely wrong, or Catholics would not have an argument with Protestants. And on the subject of Francis, I think many Catholics would agree that his public statements have done little but confuse on the issue of salvation for the average man. So Challies' reaction is hardly surprising. That last statement should not be surprising either unless we assume Francis' good works are the trump card for any argument against him. Which also seems strange given the fact it is his official job to create positive buzz for the Church. That does not negate his good works, any more than his good works certify his teaching.

Tom B. said...

I'd say he's right up to: "Those who have been granted justification eventually merit heaven on the basis of the good works enabled by that Justification" Justification is 'the ticket to heaven' if you will, nothing further is needed. You are guaranteed Heaven (barring un-repented mortal sin); Heaven cannot be earned or merited. An infant hasn't earned anything by being dunked.

Good works are for Sanctification. Sanctification must be completed (perhaps in Purgatory) before you actually get to Heaven. Being Sanctified (having you nature perfectly aligned with Christ's) is kinda what heaven IS.
Anyway that's my sound bite version.

Dan said...

Hi Tom. Aside from the reference to mortal sin and Purgatory, you sound like a Protestant :). According to the 6th session of the Council of Trent (, justification partly consists in sanctification (see chapter 10), and this process is indeed taken to merit eternal life (see chapter 16).

Canon 32: "If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life, - if so be, however, that he depart in grace, - and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema."

I think this supports Challies' characterisation.

Tom B. said...

Well I'll give it some thought. My initial reaction is: That's an awful translation - why would someone translate the Council of Trents documents in a psuedoJKB style - not everything a Council says is infallible, anymore than everything a Pope says - why are Protestants so obsessed with the anathemas of Trent anyway - anathemas don't damn people you know, only the Most High can do that; they cast people out (literally: set them aside) - They apply to Catholics; you were born set aside (unless you are a former Catholic that is) - The Council of Trent was called to condemn Lutherans: it did a thourough job I must say - Why do Protestant's proof-text Catholic Church documents?; we don't even prooftext Scripture, much less 500 year old Counciliar statements - there are no more anathemas they were all done away with - and yes I simplified, Justification and Sanctification are intangled; if you ignore Sanctification the above mentioned unrepented moral sin becomes increasingly likely, so failure to work on Sanctification can imperil your Justification - But Justification is yea or niegh, Sanctification is a matter of degree - I'm still trying to parce that g'awful Late Middle English sentence structure - itmt Happy Easter.

Dan said...

Sorry about the translation; I just pulled up an online version Google gave me :). I think Trent's view of justification is false, so I agree popes and councils are fallible. But what was relevant here was whether Challies had rightly described the Catholic view (whether that view is true or false). And Trent backs up Challies, not you, though I appreciate your intention to give it some thought. Of course if the Catholic magisterium has since rejected (the relevant parts of) Trent, then my referring to it cannot establish that Challies has rightly described the (current) Catholic view. If you think that has happened, please show me where. But the Catechism linked on this site ( seems to acknowledge the two points I drew from Trent, namely that justification includes sanctification and that one can merit eternal life.

"Initial" and "final" justification may be yea or nay, but Trent speaks of being "further" justified, and so sees a kind of "justification" in between these two that is continuous with sanctification and so a matter of degree. (Not that I want you to think any of this is true.) Happy Easter to you as well.

cajaquarius said...

Sounds like a declaration that justifies Sloth and the wide, easy road to me. Outside of any redeeming context "Saved by Faith/Grace" is man made tripe designed to free so-called Christians from actually following in the footsteps of the Master. More proof that Christ's simple wisdom has been polluted by needless self serving legalisms through the ages.

I do admire Francis quite a lot though. No man has so aptly revealed the difference between the Christ follower and tha Paul worshiper so clearly and distinctly in a long while.

me, myself & I r all here said...

perhaps a set of tweezers might help you "see" THE pope, neither old/new

daveyork7 said...

I am a protestant and even a cursory reading of the gospels tells one that 'whoever is not against you is for you'. I have realized in my lifetime that 'the Lord knows those who are His' and 'everyone who believes in Him will not be put to shame.' So I commend Francis and everyone else who tries their best to both follow Christ and show Him forth to others.

ME said...

His official job is to create "positive buzz" for the Church? That statement alone is absurd. His job is to defend and teach the Truth passed on from Christ through the apostles, and lead the Church. Yes, it is good when we get positive buzz, but he is not a marketing coordinator.

Nucc3 . said...

There's nothing wrong with TRUE humility but I do wonder about a counterfeit one.

Slocum Moe said...

It's a quandary for the trad cats. If Francis is not authoritative, then JP II and Benny might not be either. Where are the poisoners when you need them!

Dan Hamilton said...

Challies has proclaimed himself a discerner. I now proclaim myself good looking and rich, crap, didn't work......

Andrew Dowling said...

Any reading of the Gospel and the early Fathers show sola fide is a sham. Luther took Paul's words about "works of the Law" completely out of his cultural context and was a horrible biblical theologian.

Andrew Dowling said...

"But isn't it possible to good things for bad or mistaken reasons?"

So Francis maybe washed the feet of prisoners "for mistaken reasons"? What arrogance!

Johannine L said...

"it asserts the Holy Spirit has been almost totally ineffective in getting even the most impressive believers to read the bible as well as Tim Chailles"

First, you beg the question by asserting that the Catholic Church is composed of believers. Second, you act as though the populace had access to the Bible which is simply not true. Throughout the dominance of the Catholic Church-State, very, very few had access to the Bible.

"It requires ... a strange God that lets billions devote their lives to Jesus"

Again, begs the question about whether Catholic faith is devotion to Jesus.

Johannine L said...

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."

"He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

"... these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life."

"And He said to her, 'Daughter, your faith has made you well. Go in peace, and be healed of your affliction.'"

"Then Jesus said to him, 'Go your way; your faith has made you well.' And immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus on the road."

Randy Gritter said...

"First, you beg the question by asserting that the Catholic Church is composed of believers"

You don't think St Augustine is a believer? What about St Patrick of Ireland, St Francis of Assisi, St Thomas Aquinas? You want to say they are all non-believers and in hell? Read their stories. Read their writings.

"Second, you act as though the populace had access to the Bible which is simply not true"

Bible's were expensive. Still most people who could read had at least some access to the scriptures. We are talking just about the educated minority but that is still a lot of people. A lot of people who seem like impressive Christians. They don't believe this one doctrine Tim says is essential but they seem like Christians in every other way so you wonder how essential that is.

The other thing you see if you read these guys is that they took scripture very seriously. They read it. They reflected on it. They obeyed it. They analyzed it very intelligently. If the Holy Spirit could not teach these guys the essential doctrines then we are all in trouble.

"Again, begs the question about whether Catholic faith is devotion to Jesus."

They think they are. Many of them take it very seriously. Pope Francis and Mother Teresa seem devoted. Would God say our devotion does not count because we made a theological error? It seems akin to God sending us to heaven or hell based on whether we get a math problem right.

Johannine L said...


If they trusted Christ alone for their salvation, they are saved. If not, then no, they aren't saved.

Labels don't damn people. The matter isn't whether someone can call himself Catholic and be saved, but rather whether he can believe official Catholic doctrine and be saved. Consequently, whether Augustine called himself a Christian is merely a biographical note if the question at hand is, "Was he saved?"

Bibles were expensive, but more importantly, the Bible was generally not in the vulgar tongue, nor was it preached in the vulgar tongue. Correct me if I'm wrong. Let me also note that I do believe that the invisible church did largely reside in the Catholic church for many centuries, with outspoken proto-Protestants popping up every now and then.

Moreover, your argument about the Spirit's ineffectiveness fails to take into account how scripture describes the visible church. The visible church is full of false teachers. I'd guess that more ink is spilt describing false teachers than any other kind of evildoer. Many are called, few are chosen. Does it surprise you that so many counterfeit gospels exist?

I am shocked that you think that "Person S took his faith really seriously" carries any polemical weight. Every worldview has professors who take their adherence seriously. Are they all saved?

There's an old saying (well, maybe its not old, I don't know) that goes, 'Study scripture and you'll be a Protestant. Study history and you'll be a Catholic.' Incidentally it was a Protestant-turned-Catholic who quoted that shortly after their conversion to Rome. I like it. It's honest and fairly accurate. I think we're getting a glimpse of it in our discussion right now. Fundamentally, it's a commentary on epistemology. Protestants tend use scripture to interpret experience, and Catholics vice versa.

Would you like to succinctly share why you converted to Catholicism? I'd be interested in knowing.

Catholic Fast Food Worker said...

I meant "proto-Protestants"

Catholic Fast Food Worker said...

If labels "don't matter", why do you label people "pro-Protestants"? Besides sounding ridiculous, the notion of "pro-Protestants" is false. Why do you insist on such a strict dichotomy between the good "invisible church" & the bad "visible church"? First came the Church (instituted by Christ through St. Peter & His Apostles), then came the Sacred Scriptures (the holy canons approved & written by the Church, not the other way around). The Protestant Revolt (not "reformation") was man-made & against our Lord's prayer to the Father that they may all be ONE. Why do you object to our Lord Christ Jesus? To study both Scripture & History is to cease to be Protestant & to become Catholic. The Catholic Church is the true Bride of Christ, all others are prostitutes.

Dan Carollo said...

Actually, for the first TWO centuries of the Church, few Christians had access to the Bible -- because there wasn't even "The Bible" as we know it today.

Dan Carollo said...

Here's a question to ask: Which "Scriptures" tell us which writings are supposed to be included as part of the inspired Scriptures?

BTW, the old saying should more accurately go as:
"Study scripture in isolation from (and against) the living, interpretative conversation of The Church going back to the 1st century (as if the written canon of Scripture has always been the sole authority for faith and practice in the Church) and you'll be one of over 30,000 varieties of a Protestant"

Dan Carollo said...

You're missing a point, however: "by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ"

The key distinction a Catholic would make (in contrast to legalists or "works salvation") is that All "good works" are done IN Christ, by his grace in the power of the Holy Spirit, whom we must respond to and cooperate with.

Baptism is that initial grace by which we are adopted into God's covenant family as his children (but with no guarantee the children won't go astray and reject the family of God.)

When exactly does "Justification" actually happen in the Protestant view? And to ask this specifically using a Biblical example: When exactly was "Abraham justified"?

1) When Abraham first responded to God's call to go out from his place? Hebrews 11:8 (cf. Genesis 12): "By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place that he was to receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going."

2) When Abraham was visited by God in a dream? (Genesis 15): "And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness."

3) Or when Abraham offered his son Isaac on the mount? Hebrews 11:17 (cf. James 2:21, Genesis 22:12): "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?"

Dan said...

Hi Dan Carollo,
Why do you claim I am "missing a point"? I quoted that very text that you (re-)quoted. In context (I think, this was a while ago :)), I was showing that Trent supports Challies' characterization of the Roman-Catholic view of justification (contra Beckwith's charge). If you think Challies "get[s] the Catholic view of justification wrong", maybe you can point out the erroneous statements. (Note that what is in view here is not whether Challies is right about the truth/falsity of Catholic doctrine, but about what that doctrine is.)

You said: "The key distinction a Catholic would make (in contrast to legalists or "works salvation") is that All "good works" are done IN Christ, by his grace in the power of the Holy Spirit, whom we must respond to and
cooperate with."

I understand this distinction, as have Protestants historically. It doesn't resolve the disagreement. We think Scripture teaches that one is justified (before God, vis-a-vis the last day's verdict unto eternal life) by faith apart from works. There is no qualifier there to the effect that only works done apart from grace are being excluded.

You said: "When exactly does "Justification" actually happen in the Protestant view? And to ask this specifically using a Biblical example: When exactly was "Abraham justified"?"

My answer would depend on what you mean by 'justification' and 'justified'. Do you think that in *any* of these three passages (Gen 12, 15, 22), the *infusion* of righteousness is in view?

Johannine L said...

Dan, most books claim to be inspired either directly or indirectly, or point to other books or authors as being authoritative. More fundamentally, I take scripture as self-authenticating and believe that the Holy Spirit guided the elect to acknowledge the true canon.

The Catholic church is not the church of the 1st century, so I can't accept your second paragraph. Were they the true church they would not have abandoned the true gospel of justification by faith alone and fabricated blasphemous doctrines (such as Purgatory) in its place.

Anyway, as I said earlier, some in the Catholic church were elect, not holding to official false gospel of Rome. The most notable was a priest named Martin Luther.

The largest schism in the history of Christendom occurred within the Catholic Church (East-West schism) so I can't help but smile when Catholics bring up the subject of denominations. Let the Catholic church take care of the plank in its own eye.

Of course, the charge is faulty from the start, for just because Y breaks off from X does not mean X ceases to be true or unified. The Bible says that false teachers would arise en masse, so if there were no false teachers claiming to be the true church then the Bible would not be true.

Paul Gerard said...

What arrogance, study scripture are you'll be a protestant = heretic. Study scripture and you'll return to Rome - the fount of all truth. With you protestant eyes explain the Book of Revelation which describes the Catholic Mass, that was present in 60AD. Explain Christ's comment of "I am the living bread that came down from Heaven....unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood" which is the transubstantiation doctrine of the Catholic Mass, explain the Passover in the context of scripture and the fulfilment of prophecy? Quite simply protestants can't because the Trueht of old and new testament is diametrically opposed to their notion of sola scriptura and perosnal justification. Protestants are modernists who make things up to fit their age, their subjectivism. They're on the whole ignorant of history, and read scripture through the prism of literalism, with no capacity to understand context or historical nuance.

bender said...

Why do you bother to humor these people by feeding their obsession over an issue ("justification") that was settled over 500 years ago (and which they got wrong at that time as well)?
Let them rant and rave by themselves -- the Church left the room a long time ago. No need to go back in.

Laurence Charles Ringo said...

Finally! Thank you for letting Holy Writ speak!

Laurence Charles Ringo said...

Wrong according to who? YOU?

Laurence Charles Ringo said...

Are you high, "cajaquarius"? I would remind you that the great Apostle Paul was commissioned by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, so your implications that Paul is worshipped in ANY sense verges on blaspheming Christ Himself! What's wrong with you?? Only the saved ARE redeemed; a 1st year seminary student would get that. As for your sloth crack, I suggest you read Romans chapters five and six; Paul pretty much took care of that issue.You don't need your ecclesiastical masters, the so-called"magisterium " to help you to understand the passages, do you? And speaking only for myself as one who believes the Scriptures ARE the Word of God, I would venture to say that Ephesians 2:1-9 pretty much covers the" saved by grace/faith" part. Feel free to disagree.

cajaquarius said...

[Are you high, "cajaquarius"? I would remind you that the great Apostle Paul was commissioned by Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, so your implications that Paul is worshipped in ANY sense verges on blaspheming Christ Himself!]

Paul claims that he was knocked off his horse on the road to Damascus and given a vision. There were no trustworthy witnesses to this event. As such, you are just buying into what Paul claims. You should be more skeptical of those who claim to speak on behalf of Christ lest you fall prey to false teachers

[What's wrong with you?? Only the saved ARE redeemed; a 1st year seminary student would get that. As for your sloth crack, I suggest you read Romans chapters five and six; Paul pretty much took care of that issue.You don't need your ecclesiastical masters, the so-called"magisterium " to help you to understand the passages, do you?]

Paul was a liar (2 Corinthians 12:16) and had the weakest Faith of any of those chosen by God to minister as prophets and teachers (lest we forget he had Timothy circumcised after teaching against it to the gentiles so that he would be better received; if there is another prophet who had such little faith in God that he made such preparations in opposition to his own teachings, I would love to know of them). Why should I believe anything this lowly swine said to the Romans, the Galatians, or anyone for that matter? Sorry, you may worship at the altar of Paul but I choose to follow Christ, not this false apostle.

[ And speaking only for myself as one who believes the Scriptures ARE the Word of God, I would venture to say that Ephesians 2:1-9 pretty much covers the" saved by grace/faith" part. Feel free to disagree.]

The Scriptures contain the Word of God but they are still translated and transcribed by human beings. You must be careful not to make a graven idol out of them. You have been mislead. Paul added nothing of value to the scriptures. He was a murderer, a liar, a braggart, and a pharisee who saw an opportunity to filch power and glory to himself from Christ. His path and his teachings are easy.

If you disagree, give me one teaching of Paul not covered better by Christ. Just one and I will renounce everything I have claimed here and admit I was wrong.

Also, I highly suggest "Paul vs Jesus (and James)" from author Davis D. Danizier available for free on his blog online. I am afraid you have been mislead. Your defense of Paul is almost rabid and has clearly made you upset but Paul is just a man, worthy of no more trust than he earned by his actions. I would urge you to meditate on this more than you have.

Laurence Charles Ringo said...

Your bizarre, pathological hatred of the great Apostle Paul has convinced me that further engagement would be fruitless , cajaquarius, so I bid you adieu, and God Bless.

cajaquarius said...

You are mistaken. I do not hate Paul. Quite the contrary, actually. I afford Paul a high honor as chosen by God to fulfill an unfortunate but necessary role. Paul grafted needless legalism to the teaching of Christ that a strongly feel protected the teaching from the tampering of kings, philosophers, and others. In the same way I would honor Alexander the Great or Judas Iscariot, I honor Paul as well.

I will not call him apostle or teacher for that would be false as I have proven. That said, I do not hate him. I do hope you someday come to idolize this man less. Until then God bless you as well.

Heerad Hojjatian said...
still Pope Bennedict announced the Christ is back on March in 2013 MEDIA BLACKOUT

michicatholic said...

That's actually not true. The entire OT was available, widely read and understood by Jews. They knew it by heart.
The Gospels & Epistles were read in the respective churches before they were bound into what we call the Bible. But they were used and well known since the time of Paul and the apostles.

gerald nichols said...

Agreed. The question raised---

" It requires either a near total ignorance of church history and Catholic piety or it requires a strange God that lets billions devote their lives to Jesus and still go to hell because they did it wrong."

--- calls for us to go to Paul's letters. Would Paul admit to
the idea that there is another gospel than his?

Peter Geoffrey said...

Hus, Wycliff, Tyndale, Luther, Zwingly and many other Founders of the Reformation...all ... ordained CATHOLIC Priests. Miss that one? Having spent 53 years there, it's amazing that so many US "Biden-esque", "Pelosi-esque" RCC'ers (Mass on Sunday, vote for late term abortion on Monday) don't realize an objective view of the corruption in both doctrine and praxis that caused Scholastics and then people like the CATHOLIC Reformers to object to the "left" the Tiber had taken. (absolute power corrupting absolutely -- (like Honorious 1, Stephen VI, Benedict IX, Boniface VIII, Urban VI, Alexander VI, etc). Ever check out the 40 Anti-Popes New Advent ( 15% of 266 sitting Popes) on New Advent (One "true" church--seriously?) The Same folks will point a scathing finger at ISIS, yet ignore the drawn and quarterings and mass torture & immolations of thousands/millions "in the name of the Pope". Read up on the Albigensian Crusades and good old Abbot Arnaud Amalric ("..kill them all, God knows His own..") - given what Christ told Peter about " by the sword.." that speaks volumes. Wakeup Call - God is not bounded by any doctrine or ruled by any guy in a big hat, so please get over yourselves. (More Francis, less Hubris filled Aquinas & Augustine -- pompous "Theol-itry". There will be many in heaven from Rome (in spite of the Luke 18:9-14 attitude (read Bergoglio's 4 minute speech to the conclave about "Theological narcissism"), yet if any of these "Ignatian Responders" here get there, it will be because God is a merciful God, in spite of you. If this sounds painful, I apologize--but the academic and theological hubis at the extremes of both ends of the spectrum (moreso Rome from this thread) is a millstone to the work we ALL have to do in spreading the GOSPEL in the NT; especially considering the essentials we agree on (Nicene, Apostles Creed). Enough with the "I'm Catholic, I was here first and God likes me Best" -- If you really want to go back to "Primacy", go worship at a Messianic Jewish synagogue this Friday -- Church up until the Council of Jerusalem in AD49 ... still keeping Kosher, just not needing the Levitical Sacrifices. Enough said? Let's get to work.

gerald nichols said...

C'mon, the letters of Paul were read in the assemblies and circulated among separate churches.

Dan Carollo said...

But they didn't have a complete NT Canon and several letters were even in dispute quite late (James, Hebrews, Revelation, etc.)

Dan Carollo said...

It's GRACE alone. Luther fabricated the "Faith Alone" part.

Johannine L said...

Grace alone and faith alone are inseparable. To believe in grace alone without faith alone is to pay lip service to grace alone.

"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness" (Rom 4)

"For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." (Eph 2)

Dan Carollo said...

His grace is the reason we can even have faith (or works, for that matter)! I agree 100% that none of it is "from ourselves", just as Ephesians 2 says. Just like a real marriage is not just saying "I do", but actually living it out. Justification involves our entire life handed over to God, not just what happens in the mind. Also, to not have "works" is paying lip-service to grace/faith (as James reminds us).

Johannine L said...

Your works, even if caused by God's grace, are still *your* works and therefore count as debt.

No disagreement with your last sentence. True believers produce fruit. That doesn't make the fruit the cause of salvation.

1 Corinthians 6:9 says that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God. Isaiah says our righteousness is like filthy rags. If we cannot produce a satisfactory righteousness through our good works, how shall we ever be saved?

"If anyone else thinks he may have confidence in the flesh, I more so ... But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. ... for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith..." (Phil 3)

"... these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:31)

Dan Carollo said...

Is Faith *your* faith?

Johannine L said...

It is *my* faith, but my faith is not *my* work, it is God's (John 6:28-29). Hence there is no boasting in faith, whereas there is boasting in works. (Eph. 2:8-9)