Posted on 05/09/2007 10:01:17 AM PDT by NYer
Francis Beckwith’s announced return to the Catholic Church has generated an avalanche of invective and revilement from evangelicals. I have been stunned by what I have read. It is clear that in the minds of many the Catholic Church remains the hated Antichrist. To enter into her communion is to abandon the faith of the Apostles and to jeopardize one’s eternal salvation.
But some evangelicals have responded with sobriety and directed their reflections to the important theological differences between Catholicism and evangelicalism. Guy Davies, a Welsh Reformed preacher, identifies justification by faith as the crucial difference between the two traditions:
The Roman teaching on justification is that we are justified by grace at baptism. But this initial justification must be improved by our works. Does this understanding of justification really have greater ‘explanatory power’ than the Protestant view? Where in the New Testament is justification related to baptism? In the teaching of Paul, we are justified by faith apart from works. God’s declaration that we are right with him in Christ cannot be improved upon. The Roman Catholic teaching is not straightforward justification by works, because it is held that we are graciously justified at baptism. But the notion that our justification by grace must be supplemented by works is at best semi-Pelagian. The Catholic teaching downplays the seriousness of sin and calls into question the the freeness of God’s grace. Perhaps the Evangelicals and Catholics Together movement (here) has had the effect of blurring the dividing lines between Rome and the Reformation over justification? The new perspective on Paul has had a similar effect.
Davies rightly notes that the Catholic Church teaches that sinners are justified by grace, decisively communicated to the person in the Sacrament of Holy Baptism. But he asks, “Where in the New Testament is justification related to baptism?” Here we see the terrible reductionism of sola scriptura at work. Scripture is ripped from the eucharistic life of the Church and becomes a free-floating entity to which the beliefs and practices of the Church are then subjected according to alien hermeneutical criteria. For all within the eucharistic community the intrinsic connection between justification and baptism/Church is so manifest, so obvious, so clear, that no prooftexts from Scripture are needed. To be baptized is to be incorporated into the Church; to be incorporated into the Church is to be made a member of the body of Christ; to be made a member of the body of Christ is to be adopted as a son in the Son and regenerated in the Holy Spirit; to be adopted in sonship and regenerated in the Holy Spirit is to be elevated into the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. St Augustine saw clearly the union of justification and theosis:
It is clear that He calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to become the sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation. (Ennar. In Ps. 49.2)
Life in the Church is life in the Holy Trinity, and this simply is our justification. If a person cannot see this when he reads the New Testament, there can be only one response: read it again but this time read it with the Church and her Eucharist. It might also be noted that significant advances along these lines have been made in Lutheran-Orthodox ecumenical discussions (see One with God: Salvation as Deification and Justification by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen).
But the New Testament is hardly silent on the relation of baptism and justification, though the relation between the two may not be as explicit and obvious as our evangelical brethren would like it to be. Peter Leithart notes two passages in particular:
At least twice, Paul makes a direction connection between baptism and justification. Having reminded the Corinthians that they had been the kind of people who do not inherit the kingdom, he goes on to remind them that they are no longer such people: “but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of God” (6:11). Is Paul taking about water baptism when he refers to “washing” or to some spiritual and invisible washing? I believe the former; the phrase “in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ” echoes the baptismal formulae of Matthew 28 and Acts, and the reference to the Spirit also links with baptismal passages (Acts 2; 1 Cor 12:12-13). This whole passage is in fact embedded in a baptismal formula: “you were washed . . . in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.” Note too that Paul marks the shift from what the Corinthians “were” to what they “are” by a reference to their baptism. They have become different folk by being baptized. What, though, is the relationship between the baptism and sanctification and justification? The connection here is not absolutely clear, but I suggest that sanctification and justification are two implications of the event of baptism. The pagan Corinthians have been washed-sanctified-justified by their baptism into the name of Jesus and the concommitant action of the Spirit.
Romans 6:7 is another passage where Paul links baptism and justification. He who has died, Paul writes, is “justified from sin.” And when, in context, does one die? “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life” (vv. 3-4). Baptism into Christ means baptism into death; those who have been baptized have been crucified with Jesus; and those who are dead in and with Jesus have been justified from sin. Here, “justify” carries the connotation of deliverance from the power of sin. Through baptism, we die to our natural solidarity and society with Adam and brought into solidarity with and the society of Jesus.
I cite Leithart because he is a Reformed scholar. Lutheran, Anglican, and Catholic testimony could be quickly produced, but would also be just as quickly dismissed by evangelicals. Having recently re-read Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, I truly wonder how anyone can miss the union of justification and baptism. Do evangelicals stop at Roman 4:25? How can they not see that Paul’s discussion of justification in the first four chapters must be interpreted in light of Paul’s subsequent discussion of the death and resurrection of the believer in baptism and his rebirth in the Holy Spirit? They do not see, because they are reading their Bible through evangelical spectacles. There is a blindness that only the healing of Eucharist and the authentic teaching of the Church can cure.
In the conclusion of his short article, Leithart makes a turn which Martin Luther would have thoroughly approved:
There is a key difference between the Word declared in the gospel, and the declaration effected by baptism. The Word offers the favor of God generally; baptism declares that God favors me in particular. If baptism is not the public declaration of justification, where does that public declaration take place? Is it ever heard on earth, about me in particular? Is it heard anywhere but in my heart? … It appears to me that justification by faith and forensic justification are difficult to maintain apart from a strong view of baptismal efficacy, without saying that in baptism God Himself says something about me in particular.
I would want to significantly expand the relation between justification and baptism (Leithart would also, I’m sure), but this is a good place to begin. As soon as one sees the intrinsic connection between justification and baptism, the New Testament begins to read very differently. Perhaps Dr Beckwith had this in mind when he wrote on his blog: “Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries.”
The man may have had an intellectual consent to salvation by faith, but he never had a saving faith.You see his indecision in some of the waffling he does .
As to who called me to be his judge... the word of God
2Cr 6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
2Cr 6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove [them].
Eph 5:12 For it is a shame even to speak of those things which are done of them in secret.
Eph 5:13 But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light.
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
It's a technical term of art, so the original Greek meaning is not relevant. There was, at the time of Trent, a formal liturgy for making someone "anathema".
Your churches attempts to cover its ruthless hatred of the reformers is hollow
LOL. Poor dears. As though the "reformers" didn't say far, far worse than that about Rome.
You need to read your Bible more carefully, then.
I think it's amusing that, on the one hand, you've condemned Dr. Beckwith to hell ...
while, on the other hand, you incorrectly accuse Trent of doing the same to the "reformers" and object to that and call it "hatred".
Right here, on the same thread, and you don't even see the breathtaking double standard that you're embracing. It's okay for you to damn Dr. Beckwith, but wrong for Trent to "damn" John Calvin?
If what Trent did is "hatred," then what you're doing is precisely the same.
LOL.
To those Protestants who express umbrage that the Catholic Church has supposedly “condemned them to Hell” by the standard formula “anathema sit” (let him be anathema) attached to the dogmatic decrees of Trent (and other General Councils), I say, CALM DOWN! No one has declared you damned! “Anathema sit” does NOT mean “let him be damned”, but rather “let him be cut off from fellowship, excommunicated”. The Catholic Church has never declared anyone damned. No one is damned until he reaches the judgment seat of Christ and is declared so by Christ. Until then, no man has the knowledge to say that someone is damned.
The standard formula that has been used for many centuries in defining a proposition P to be a dogma is “If anyone say that P is not true, let him be anathema”. That has the form of a sentence of excommunication for denying the proposition. But really, it is just a formula, that in effect means simply: “this is a heretical proposition.”
What all this illustrates is the inherent danger involved in the habit some Protestants have acquired of thinking that the meanings of texts are all obvious on their face and that anyone, however untutored, however inexpert, coming from whatever background, can immediately know the real meaning of any text he comes across. Well, maybe you don’t need a Catholic Church to tell you what a text in the Bible means, but you SURE DO need the Catholic Church to tell you what the Catholic Church means by the texts of her own decrees! It is pure silliness for a person who has very little knowledge of Catholic doctrine, canon law, etc. to start telling the Catholic Church what Catholic documents mean.
Besides which, the Catholic Church says that in order to commit a “mortal sin” (i.e. one that leads to damnation -—
see 1 John 5:16) a person has to (a) know that what he is doing is gravely sinful, and (b) do it freely. But the vast majority of Protestants are unaware that the Catholic Church has authority to condemn false doctrine, and so they do NOT know that in embracing those condemned doctrines they are doing anything wrong. So they are NOT necessarily committing mortal sin (according to the Catholic Church) by doing so. So the Church could NOT possibly declare them to be in “the state of mortal sin” and hence damned.
All this nonsense about how Trent “damned” Protestants is, frankly, ignorant nonsense. Catholics who read these claims about the Church “damning people” just laugh to themselves at the ignorance involved.
One other thing: To Catholics who say that the “anathemas” of Trent (or any other General Council) are somehow no longer in force: not so! Any doctrine that has been declared by a General Council with an “anathema” attached to its denial, is binding on the faithful for all time. But this nonsense about
‘anathema sit’ meaning “he is damned” is nonsense.
Depends on what means by assurance. I find it assuring that the Catholic Church tells me the truth about Jesus Christ.
You need to read the decrees of the early councils. They are full of anathemas. But as for the Reformers, their writing are full of anathemas—for the Catholic Church and for their fellow Reformers. As for following “Christ rather than Rome,” that is a simple misstatement. Protestants were chosing to following the teachings of individuals of Luther, Calvin, and Zwingli rather than those of Rome. You are, of course, free to reject Catholic dogma. But is it honest not to admit that you are following other dogmas? Neither sola Scriptura no justification by faith alone meet the simple test of being clearly stated in the Scriptures. Just compare Romans with the crisp logic of Calvin’s
work. In Calvin one sees a French canon lawyer at work. In Paul one sees a theologian of a very different sort, and his views have clearly be forced onto the procratian bed that Calvin has built. And despite all the books written on the subject, none one, certainly, not Calvin,, has managed to reconcile what James said with Calvin’s interpretation of Paul.
It is a greek word thats greek mean precedes the redefinition of your church to make it sound more tolerable to tender ears . But God is not mocked.
I can not condemn anyone to hell, that is the work of God .
I made the observation that he is unsaved, I did not make him unsaved .
while, on the other hand, you incorrectly accuse Trent of doing the same to the "reformers" and object to that and call it "hatred".
I did not "curse "him to hell or say I wanted him to go there. In fact I aid it was sad to realize he was unsaved
Right here, on the same thread, and you don't even see the breathtaking double standard that you're embracing. It's okay for you to damn Dr. Beckwith, but wrong for Trent to "damn" John Calvin?
Again I did not damn him to hell or send him to hell I simply made the judgment that the word of God commands we do, that is make judgments on the spiritual conditions of men I fellowship, do business with, marry or have as my teachers
If what Trent did is "hatred," then what you're doing is precisely the same. LOL.
No I am praying for God to open his ears and eyes to the truth, I grieve for the mans soul
I do not believe the Catholic church can get one man into heaven let alone damn them to hell.
I do know the greek word and the Catholic church has to stand accountable for its words.
simply made the judgment that the word of God commands we do, that is make judgments on the spiritual conditions of men I fellowship, do business with, marry or have as my teachersYou do, as an individual, what the Council of Trent did as an Apostolic Authority. You have no such authority. They did.
It just reveals the truth of things. Most evangelicals would let Lucifer’s black army take all the Catholics away to the camps and not think twice about it.
Have you ever read the bible?
Matthew 7:1-5
1. "Do not judge, or you too will be judged.
2. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3. "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye?
4. How can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
5. You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
(A warning to judge correctly in support of this scripture
John 7:24 24. Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment." )
* 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he who is spiritual judges ~all~ things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
* 1 Corinthians 6:2 Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1 Corinthians 5:11-13
11. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.
12. What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?
13. God will judge those outside. "Expel the wicked man from among you."
Scripture tells us to judge and how to judge.
How then is Trent not doing just that, AND with Apostolic Authority (again, an authority you lack)? More - while you may be called not to associate with the public and persistent sinner, where are you called on to publish your opinion?
In the New Testament this word always implies execration. In some cases an individual denounces an anathema on himself unless certain conditions are fulfilled (Act 23:12,14,21). “To call Jesus accursed” [anathema] (1Cr 12:3) is to pronounce him execrated or accursed. If any one preached another gospel, the apostle says, “let him be accursed” (Gal 1:8,9); i.e., let his conduct in so doing be accounted accursed.
In Rom 9:3, the expression “accursed” (anathema) from Christ, i.e., excluded from fellowship or alliance with Christ, has occasioned much difficulty. The apostle here does not speak of his wish as a possible thing. It is simply a vehement expression of feeling, showing how strong was his desire for the salvation of his people.
The anathema in 1Cr 16:22 denotes simply that they who love not the Lord are rightly objects of loathing and execration to all holy beings; they are guilty of a crime that merits the severest condemnation; they are exposed to the just sentence of “everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”
Easton’s Bible Dictionary
Cursing someone to hell is not the same thing as making a judgment on the spiritual condition of a man at a certain period of time
That's interesting; considerable prophecy says that the antichrist will be a Jew of the tribe of Dan. (i.e. a Merovingian)
To some, its all about men, not Christ.
Ahem ... .you may want to revisit the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS ON SALVATION .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.