Posted on 10/19/2010 6:05:21 PM PDT by Gamecock
Question:
Do we really know what they (the Catholic church) believe in and why we can’t compromise the differences for the sake of unity?
(Michael Horton assistant pastor at Santee United Reformed Church and professor at Westminster Seminary California on the White Horse Inn a few years ago, answers that question below: )
Answer:
“In the first week of October 1997 a coalition of individual Roman Catholics and evangelical protestants issued a joint statement of their common understanding of the Christian Gospel titled The Gift of Salvation. It was an earnest attempt to state the message of salvation in language acceptable to errors of the Protestant Reformation and to answer some of the objections that were raised to an earlier document known as Evangelicals and Catholics Together produced by many of the same people.
On the surface this new statement published Christianity Today seems greatly improved and to some respects it is. However we are profoundly distressed by its assertions and omissions which leave it seriously flawed. We understand it to be expressed in terms consistent with historic Roman Catholic theology while failing adequately express the essential Protestant understanding of the Gospel and we plead with our fellow evangelicals not to be deceived by this new and initiative but instead hold firm the doctrine of Justification by Grace alone through faith alone because of Christ alone which is the biblical Gospel.
Now the first of these two documents Evangelicals and Catholics Together was a call to the Christian world to form a united front against the destructive influences of secular culture and such areas as ethics, statism, and the relativism of truth. In the context of this call to co-belligerency in the common sphere of cultural life which we hardly endorse, Evangelicals and Catholics Together affirmed a unity of faith among Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. Included in this common faith was an affirmation that we are Justified by Grace through faith because of Christ. Now many Christians were unsettled by that affirmation chiefly because in historic controversy between Protestants and Roman Catholics regarding the doctrine of Justification by faith alone, Sola Fide. Pleas were made to the signatories to provide greater clarity to this matter. The second document attempts to do this, unlike the first [document] the Gift of Salvation, the second document tries to clarify the unity of faith that was asserted earlier it emphasizes the grace of God and salvation, the atonement of Christ, and the gift of Justification is received through faith, but there is nothing new about in this language for the Roman Catholic perspective; Rome has always maintained it that salvation is based upon grace upon the work of Christ and upon faith. The council of Trent called faith the initiation, foundation, and root of Justification. The Gift of Salvation clearly acknowledges that Justification is central to the Scriptural account of Salvation. What is striking about this document is the joint affirmation by the signatories that quote “We understand that what we affirm here is an agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by Justification by faith alone, Sola Fide.” This statement would seem to indicate that the co-signers agree in affirming the biblical doctrine of Sola Fide if such is the case we rejoice. However although it is said that certain affirmations are in an agreement with Sola Fide, Sola Fide itself is not stated. The Gift of Salvation says that 1.) Justification is received through faith 2.) Justification is not earned by good works or merits of our own 3.) Justification is entirely God’s gift 4.) In Justification God declares us to be His friends on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone and 5.) Faith is not merely intellectual assent, but the act of the whole person issuing in a changed life. Now each of these points agrees with Sola Fide, yet separately and together they fall short of both the biblical and Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide which is our concern.
Well why do they fall short? Central and essential to the Biblical doctrine of Justification and to Reformation doctrine of Sola Fide is the concept of the imputation of the Righteousness of Christ to the believer. Historically Rome has always contended that the basis of Justification is the righteousness of Christ, but it’s a righteousness infused into the believer rather than being imputed to him. This means that the believer must cooperate with and assent to that gracious work of God and only to the extent that Christ righteousness inheres in the believer will God declare that person Justified. Protestants disagree pointing to the critical difference between infused righteousness and imputed righteousness. Sola Fide affirms that you are Justified on the basis of Christ’s righteousness for us which is accomplished by Christ own perfect act of obedience apart from us not on the basis of Christ’s righteousness in us. So the good news of the Gospel is that we do not have to wait for a righteousness to be accomplished in us before God counts us as Righteous in his sight. He [God] declares us to be Just on the basis of Christ’s imputed righteousness. Without the imputation of righteousness the Gospel isn’t Good News because we could never know if we are standing before God in a Justified therefore a saved state, we’ll have to wait for some ultimate but by no means guaranteed salvation; the Gospel just isn’t Good News if believers made face thousands of years in purgatory before they come at last to heaven. Toward the end of the Gift of Salvation the signers acknowledged that there are questions that require further and urgent exploration, among these are purgatory, indulgences, merit, and the language of imputed righteousness as well as the salvation of non-Christians. But if the matter of imputed righteousness remains on the table for further discussion, not to mention purgatory, the matter of indulgences and a need for human merit of some kind the Reformation doctrine of Justification is not being affirmed in the document whatever it may claim. Thus, the document is either dangerously ambiguous, meaning whatever either side wants it to mean or is deliberately deceptive. The historic controversy over imputed versus infused righteousness is a vital, essential matter that posits irreconcilable views of Justification.
The difference between inherent righteousness no matter how acquired [Roman Catholics] and being Justified by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness alone [Protestant, Christian] doesn’t admit to compromise, nor do we view it as a matter that provokes as the [Roman Catholic] document puts it “A needlessly decisive dispute.” We [Christians] see it as the heart of the Gospel without which the Gospel is not true Gospel at all. The signatories have been careful to declare that they are not speaking for their respective communities but from and to them. But it must also be recognized that they are speaking about their communities; we want no one in those communities to be misled into thinking that what’s affirmed in the Gift of Salvation is the historic doctrine of Sola Fide. In the discussion that followed the release of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together one of the participants in the drafting of the document repeatedly said that the parties to the declaration agreed to the words of the document but understood their meaning differently. Well when this occurs we maintain that the agreement isn’t really agreement and that the declaration of unity is at best misleading, and at worse fraudulent. Attempts to bring harmony through ambiguous formulas were attempted in the past most notably the Diet of Ratisbon in 1541 on this occasion Rome switched from Sola Fide a novelty to arguing that it was always the position of the church. Nevertheless, the agreement at Ratisbon quickly unraveled over the issue of imputed versus infused righteousness. At Ratisbon the difference between the Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines seem to resolve itself into this one point, and even on this, both sides had some views in common; it seemed that there was no radical or irreconcilable difference between them, yet when they came to explain what they meant by their choice of words it became obvious that they were contending for two opposite and irreconcilable methods of Justification one by an inherent the other by an imputed righteousness—one by the personal obedience of the believer, the other by the vicarious obedience of Christ. One by the on going work of the Spirit within us, the other by Christ finished work for us. Ratisbon demonstrated that there can be no honest compromise between the Roman Catholic and Protestant doctrines of Justification, therefore any agreement made on the basis of mutual concession can only be made by using ambiguous expressions and can amount to nothing more then a meaningless truce sure to be broken by either party as soon as the subject is brought again into serious discussion.
The true legacy of Ratisbon was not unity but the anathemas of the Council of Trent 1545 to 63. Seven months of deliberation were devoted to the doctrine of Justification in the sixth session, and the end result was to pronounce anathemas on Protestant teaching. Sadly, the canons and decrees of Trent still form the clearest expression of the official Roman Catholic doctrine of Justification as evidence by the recent Catholic catechism. The effort of some recent Roman Catholic theologians to distance themselves from Trent and dialogues with representatives of other communions have nevertheless not altered official Roman Catholic teaching. The irony that while Evangelical and Catholics Together express concern over the relativisation to truth in our day it has lead in the Gift of Salvation to a relativising important truth of all, namely the Gospel itself. At least some of the Roman Catholic signatories of these two documents have declared their continuing allegiance to the teaching of the Council of Trent as they should if they are truly Roman Catholics. The Gift of Salvation declares that quote that “faith is not merely intellectual assent but the act of the whole person involving the mind, the will, and the affections issuing in a changed life.” We agree that faith is not merely intellectual assent and that saving faith includes the whole person and that it issues in a changed life, but this formula fails to address the actual controversy about saving faith, the Reformers believed that we are justified by faith alone because only faith receives and rests upon the imputed righteousness of Christ alone and appropriates his righteousness as our sole grounds of our acceptance by God. True faith is immediately effectual in securing Justification, though faith works by love and produces the fruits of righteousness, its Justifying efficacy is due solely to its embracing Christ. Saving faith according to the Bible is not only a necessary condition but is sufficient condition for Justification. Rome declares that a person could have such faith without being justified if a person commits a mortal sin, such sin deemed mortal because it kills the grace of Justification even if faith remains intact. Thus, Rome teaches that one can have faith without Justification which is a clear and persistent denial of Sola Fide. We are also distressed by the Gift of Salvation speaks about evangelism, the document says quote “We commit ourselves to evangelizing everyone. We must share the fullness of God’s saving truth with all including members of our several communities. Evangelicals must speak the Gospel to Catholics and Catholics to evangelicals.” Now on the surface this sounds like statement that Evangelicals should endorse, but it’s another case of ambiguity one which tends to undermine evangelical missionary efforts and dominantly Roman Catholic countries and elsewhere. Evangelizing here does not mean preaching the Gospel with a view to converting those who hear because to preach the Gospel to Roman Catholics would mean proclaiming it to those who are already within the church and therefore are already in the process, in Roman Catholic theology there could be nothing else, of being saved. True heirs of the Reformation insist that evangelizing means preaching the Gospel of Christ all sufficient atoning work to lost people in the churches as well as outside of them so that they might repent of their sin, trust Christ alone for their Salvation and not perish in God’s judgment. Sadly, the publication of Evangelical and Catholics Together and now the Gift of Salvation has provoked a severe controversy within the ranks of professing evangelicals. It has divided evangelicals from evangelicals. To the degree it has done this it has disrupt much of the unity once enjoyed by evangelicals and has revealed the unity that we thought we had was not as deep as we believed. Many of us have been engaged in ministry for years and have had a policy for cooperating with evangelicals of many different communions and persuasions. We are deeply committed to the cause of evangelical unity. We believe that one of the great strengths of historic evangelicalism has been the ability to set aside nonessential differences as we work together for a common mission, but the heart and soul of that unity has been and must remain our unswerving commitment to Christ and His Gospel. We believe that indeed it is the Gospel that is the power of God for Salvation. Unity apart from the Gospel is not Biblical unity. In these troubled times we dare not compromise the Gospel in the slightest degree. We celebrate not only the common Gospel we share as Evangelicals but we honor the communion of saints particularly those who for the sake of the Gospel in all ages have endured persecution, suffered want and deprivation, and have given there lives for the sake of and in defense of the Gospel. Our times require the same commitment. We believe that there is value in dialogue with Roman Catholics and other groups, but we protest against declaring that evangelicals and Roman Catholics share a common faith and mission as long as crucial issues related to Justification, such as quote “Imputation, the normative status of Justification and relation to all Christian doctrine, and diverse understandings of merit, reward, purgatory and indulgences, Mary and devotion and the assistance of the saints in the life of salvation, and the possibility of salvation for those to who have never been evangelized…” remains unresolved. We are concerned about the flock of Jesus that it may not be confused or misled by ambiguous views of the Gospel. We are concerned about the missionary enterprise of evangelicals as they bring the Gospel to the nations. We are concerned for the task of the evangelism being convinced without the evangel there is no authentic evangelism. We agree with the Reformers that Justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls and is indeed the article in by which we stand or fall. We stand together on these truths. We call on all true evangelicals to stand with us. “
Pretty words... not supported by Scripture according to Apostolic interpretation.
All those words. So little meaning.
Quick, while there's still time! Make a post on one of my threads!
NOTHING tells me MORE that I'm on the right track than to get a not according to 'Apostolic interpretation' post. Traditions and doctrines of men, and magisterium interpretations are not roads I follow. So thank you.
No, James said that a faith without work is a dead faith. I agree.
How many good works must you do to become saved? There must be a quantity, a threshold, a benchmark where you can say, “Whew, finally made it.”
Otherwise, you would never know when your works have saved you, if you happen to bypass that one event that “could” have saved you but you failed.
Jesus never fails, Jesus never loses one of his own, and no amount of work on your part will count towards your salvation... otherwise God would OWE you something.
But we ARE saved. Imputation.
The rest is SANCTIFICATION.
Do the pastors hold the same doctrine as the Sixteenth Century "reformers"? If not, then who is right and who is wrong?
“Count down before I am accused of spewing anti Catholic Venom:
5, 4, 3....”
Actually, no. It was a very interesting post and devoid of your normal foaming at the mouth rabid hatred of Catholics. Good for you. I thought it was quite informative and a great read.
Every one of them holds to the Westminster Standards.
“how does he stand before the Face of God in the perfection of heaven without a concomitant *infusion* of righteousness as well?”
I think the answer lies in distinguishing justification from sanctification. Sola Fide proposes we are justified (saved from death and eternal punishment) by faith alone, but sanctification (being made holy) is a process that is more gradual, and involves more than faith alone. Sanctification is what would allow a person to stand in the presence of the Lord, not simply justification.
No, there is no real quantity. One must do one’s duty according to one’s station in life. The important thing is to repent and confess any serious sin in order to remain in a state of grace until death.
Am I IBTS?!? There are few things I fear, but the stigmata...haunting..
The important thing is to repent and confess any serious sin in order to remain in a state of grace until death.
I would agree that it is important to repent and confess to God any and all sins, but not toward my salvation. It is already paid for. I am not my own person, but a bought and paid for slave to Jesus. All to him I owe.
Is it possible to hold the beliefs on justification as described in this article and *not* believe in double predestination?
Hmmm, why not believe in it? Obviously, if God has chosen some to live with him forever, he must have chosen for some to perish. I have no issue with that. It is all up to God, and he is perfect in his righteousness. We are the clay, and not the potter.
I can see why you would want to believe this, but Scripture and 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching says you are wrong.
Do not be fooled by the Devil. The sinner does not lose free will upon conversion. One must persevere (with Paul) until the end. That is why we pray for a holy death.
Do you mean why not believe in double predestination?
For starters it makes Jesus’s ministry moot.
Is the “Geneva” in the title of the article to mean this is a Calvinist take? I just noticed that. Duh.
If so, then I can understand if its discussion of the theology requires Calvinist predestination.
I don’t believe all Protestants necessarily believe in it; that was the jist of my question.
***The sinner does not lose free will upon conversion.***
Indeed, he GAINS a free will he never had. He now has the ability to please God, to pursue God, to pray DIRECTLY to God. The unregenerated man cannot please God in any way.
And yes, one must persever, but only with the help of the Holy Spirit. Man cannot persever on his own.
***I can see why you would want to believe this, but Scripture and 2000 years of consistent Christian teaching says you are wrong.***
And I would say that scripture DOES teach this, but the Catholic Church does not teach it.
A difference of opinion.
It’s real simple...
Does man chose to follow God, or does God allow man to follow him?
Does God know who will be his children, or is it a surprise to God, and he will just have to wait until the end of time to find out who Jesus died for?
Did Jesus die for a known quantity of people, or is it a guessing game to him and to us?
Is God going to say, “How the heck did you get in here?”
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.