|
The cure for today’s Christian confusion: a return to confessional Protestantism
Alan Roebuck writes:
My latest essay at Intellectual Conservative is “Fixing Protestantism.” The article provides a brief survey of Protestant infidelity and prescribes a cure: churches that pledge allegiance to a specific articulation of Protestant Christianity as contained in the historic Protestant creeds such as the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Augsburg confession.
I also respond very briefly to the Catholic assertion that the cure for Protestant infidelity is to become Catholic. (I’m preparing an essay on this point. One of its key assertions is that a healthy traditionalist conservative movement must allow Protestants and Catholics to disagree publicly on issues not directly related to the primary goal of true conservatism, which is the restoration of a properly-ordered American society.)
Here are excerpts from the essay:
Until recently, at least in the United States, “Evangelical” basically meant “non-liberal Protestant.” … But in recent years much of Evangelicalism has gone off the rails. Although many Evangelicals still practice traditional Protestantism, and almost all Evangelicals still use the language of their theologically conservative ancestors, the movement is characterized overall by a refusal to adhere to, or even to identify, most of the body of traditional Protestant teaching. Crucial doctrines such as the Trinity of God, the Resurrection, the Atonement, justification by faith alone and the Second Coming are still generally taught. But the details of the systematic theology that makes Christianity a coherent system and makes sense of all the Bible says (and that builds the individual’s faith) are not taught, the excuse generally being that “doctrine is divisive.”
And at no point during the six-week new members’ class were we instructed in Christian doctrine. The closest we came was when the senior pastor led us in the “Sinner’s Prayer,” a common Evangelical ritual which involves asking people to pray along with the leader as he recites a far-too-brief summary of the basic gospel message of our sinfulness and inability to save ourselves and our need to have faith in Christ for the forgiveness of our sins. Although the Sinner’s Prayer does contain important Christian truths, it is practically worthless if not followed up with a regular parish life of proper instruction in Christianity. At this church, and the other three Evangelical churches with which I was seriously involved, the leaders acted as if Christian clichés were enough to save lost sinners.
But the basic problem with fundamentalism is not being too conservative. The problem, which is the same with Liberalism and Evangelicalism, is that many of these Christians have denied the faith and cut themselves off from the theological wisdom of the ages.
Indeed, the essence of theological liberalism is the desire to make Christianity agree with the spirit of the age. Classical theological liberalism changed Christianity to agree with Enlightenment-style rationalism. “Seeker-sensitive” Evangelicals make Christianity agree with contemporary marketing theory. And “Emergent” Evangelicals make Christianity agree with postmodern relativism. In this, they are all liberals.
What then is the antidote for Protestant infidelity? As mentioned above, there is a fourth type of Protestantism. This type is not widely known, but it is usually called “confessional” or “creedal.” A confessional Protestant church requires clergy and laity alike to know and affirm agreement with at least one of the comprehensive Protestant confessions or catechisms such as the Westminster Confession of Faith for Presbyterians, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession and the Canons of Dordt for the Reformed, the Augsburg Confession for Lutherans, the London Baptist Confession for Reformed Baptists or the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion for Anglicans/Episcopalians. Each of these creeds has authority only by virtue of being a faithful summary of what the Bible teaches, the Bible being the supreme (and only inerrant) authority on every subject about which it speaks.
Postscript
A Roman Catholic would of course say that the cure for Protestant infidelity is to become Roman Catholic. And an Eastern Orthodox Christian would make analogous comments. But these versions of Christianity do not accurately embody the faith because (in the case of Roman Catholicism) they claim an authority they do not actually possess and because they distort the apostolic teaching that is recorded most accurately in the Bible. Confessional Protestantism is the version of Christianity most faithful to the teachings of Christ. Fully to substantiate these points would require an entire book, if not an entire library, but they must at least be asserted here.
- end of initial entry -
November 4
Laura Wood writes: The Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ. Mr. Roebuck can write a whole library of books, but he will be dwarfed by that mystery.
Christ came for idiots and maniacs too, not just intellectuals. Only the Catholic Church can preserve the sacramental love of Christ.
November 5
D. in Seattle writes:
Thank you for posting excerpts from Alan Roebuck’s essay. I have enjoyed reading his comments in the past, at VFR and at other sites. I have also read Alan’s complete essay since I wanted to gain some insight into the current state of Protestant churches in the U.S., even though I am not a Protestant (I am Eastern Orthodox).
I have two points to make.
1. Alan says:
… authentic Christianity, unlike every other religion, teaches what God, in Christ, has done for us (save us from our sins). But most people, including many who call themselves Christians, do not like to hear this. They want to know what they can do to save themselves. “Salvation by faith alone is too strange;” says the religious seeker, “tell me what I can do to better myself.” And therefore non-Christian religion—a category which includes much that is taught at supposedly Christian churches—teaches what man can do to save or better himself: political action, psychological self-help, practical advice for living, esoteric spiritual practices, moralism (i.e., trying harder to be good), and so on. Jesus is transformed from a Savior Who bore and atoned for our sins on the Cross to a “life coach” who shows us a better way to live.
Great observation: that is why Catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other related churches) do not teach about salvation by faith alone. We humans need something to do, so we work on our salvation day after day. Faith and work go together towards our salvation. The Good Samaritan helped the injured man. We don’t even know if the Samaritan had faith, but he helped the one in need and he showed to be the injured man’s neighbor, not the Levite and the priest who just walked by. And Christ concluded this parable by telling the lawyer who tested Him “go and do likewise.” (Luke 10:37).
2. Alan says:
A Roman Catholic would of course say that the cure for Protestant infidelity is to become Roman Catholic. And an Eastern Orthodox Christian would make analogous comments. But these versions of Christianity do not accurately embody the faith because (in the case of Roman Catholicism) they claim an authority they do not actually possess and because they distort the apostolic teaching that is recorded most accurately in the Bible. Confessional Protestantism is the version of Christianity most faithful to the teachings of Christ. Fully to substantiate these points would require an entire book, if not an entire library, but they must at least be asserted here.
I would like to see Alan explain how the Catholic churches distort the apostolic teaching. Just a basic historical reminder: the Church is older than the Bible by several decades. The Church (the apostles guided by the Holy Spirit) created the Bible, not the other way round. The Church decided which books belong in the Bible and which don’t. The Church lived for those initial several decades on the basis of Mosaic law and Holy Tradition, and then the Bible was incorporated into the living body of Christ, which is His Church, which exists to this day. And in the case of Eastern Orthodox churches, those churches have been doing things the same since at least the 4th century AD, i.e. once the Roman Empire stopped persecuting Christians. So where’s the distortion?
LA replies:
I have to say that I agree with D. on the problem of “faith alone.” Consider Jesus’ many teachings, especially in the Gospel of John, in which he tells his disciples things they should do. “Love me.” “Love one another.” “Keep my commandments.” “Abide in me, and I in you.” “I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever.” (Which sends many of his listeners running.) Or, in the First Letter of John: “God so loved us, that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that we might live through him.” Jesus also says in the Gospel of John that he himself always does the Father’s will, and acts in such a way as to please the Father. And Jesus’ actions are exemplary for the disciples.
Mr. Roebuck may reply that Jesus said that all his disciples needed to do was to “believe” in him. But what does “believe” mean? It’s not just “faith,” i.e., a state of saying to oneself, “I believe that Jesus is who he says he is and that he has come for my salvation.” Belief in him is all the things quoted above and more—it’s committing to him and living through him. And that, self-evidently, is something that is to be done. And how it is to be done, in practice, day by day, minute by minute, is something that each disciple must “work out” for himself, as Paul says. For example, how can any external teaching, any book, tell us how to “abide” in him? It is an experience, an action, that grows and develops, through trial and error, in the consciousness of each believer. While the sacraments are external actions for all orthodox Christians, and while Christ’s truth is universal and he is accessible to everyone who turns to him, we cannot get away from the fact that each of us is a separate center of consciousness and will, and therefore each of us must figure out how to direct our own consciousness and will, in day to day life as well as in relation to Jesus Christ, even if it is simply to be passively open to his presence and guidance.
James N. writes:
Faith IS a work, and, without works, “judgment” makes no sense.
November 6
Debra C. writes:
Justification is by faith alone, it is a free GIFT, there is nothing we can do to earn it. All our righteous deeds are as filthy rags—if we are counting on OUR deeds to have any merit before Christ in His canceling out our punishment for our sins.
Christ paid the price for us by His death, His atonement, on the cross. He has declared us NOT guilty. We do not make nice with God and bargain with Him as to how many deeds we must do to earn His favor and to be justified before Him. [LA replies: I don’t think that’s what D. from Seattle or I was talking about. What we were talking about was growth in Christ.]
We are declared innocent; the whole world is declared innocent (in contradistinction to the Reformed and Calvinist teaching whereby only the elect are redeemed). The whole world is redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. But not the whole world will accept this truth; they will deny Him and perish for their unbelief.
Justification is God’s work entirely and even the sanctification by which we believers live lives of thanksgiving for God’s great mercy is a work of God. It is not we who are righteous, as Luther makes clear in his writings on the Book of Galatians, but our righteous is an alien righteousness—it is Christ living through us.
See Ephesians 2:8,9; Galatians 3:13; and Romans 1:17, 11:6, and 3:28.
Before I became a Confessional Lutheran I was steeped, and I do mean steeped, in Calvinist theology, having been a student of that teaching for well over 25 years; I was a ‘disciple’ of James Montgomery Boice, J.I. Packer, and R.C. Sproul, attending conferences and immersing myself in their brand of theology through their literature and tapes, and of course my own Bible reading.
So it was no small task for one small town Lutheran theologian to shine the light on what I now consider the false teaching in the Reformed church—not to imply here, of course, that the whole of that church body is on their way to perdition.
And as for the Catholic church, all I can say is that any church that teaches that WE must add ANYTHING to what God has done for us—in justifying us in His sight through the work of Christ’s atoning death on the cross—is leading people astray.
Yes. We do good works. Not to be saved but because WE ARE saved—and even the good works we do are not our own but Christ living THROUGH US.
See also the works of Harold Senkbeil, CFW Walther, and Siegbert Becker (especially the later on the error of rationalism that afflicts the Reformed churches, in his book The Foolishness of God).
Bartholomew writes:
Romans 9:16 states that,
So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.
D. on the other hand, states that,
That is why Catholic churches (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and other related churches) do not teach about salvation by faith alone. We humans need something to do, so we work on our salvation day after day. Faith and work go together towards our salvation.
I am not entirely sure how to reconcile the two. If D. is saying that our salvation comes from some other source than faith alone, such as works, then how does he avoid running afoul of Romans 9:16, which tells us that our salvation does not depend upon our will or exertion? Surely, our works are a function of those two. [LA replies: Maybe the source of the misunderstanding is that you’re thinking of “works” as something that we are doing on our own apart from God, seeking something for ourselves, rather than something we are doing with and through God.]
If D. is saying, however, that faith without works is dead, well yes, that’s true. I don’t know of any Protestant denomination that has cut out James 2:17 from its Bible. We are all in agreement, as far as I know, that the absence of good deeds is a sign of an absence of faith.
The Protestant position simply states that a better lived life flows from salvation, and salvation flows from faith. We insist that salvation comes from faith in Christ alone and is a gift. Good works, a “transformed life” in Evangelical terminology, is a logical and expected proof of the salvation which has come from faith. It is not, however, the source of that salvation and certainly not that faith.
The Catholic position, at least as explained by D., states that salvation flows from a better life and from faith. This position is squarely at odds with Romans 9:16, which tells us that our salvation is not a result of our will. We do not will ourselves to live better lives. We do not will ourselves to be saved. We are saved and we do live better lives solely because we have been given the grace of faith which causes us to live better and to be saved. The catholic denial of this is one among other reasons, I think, that Mr. Roebuck is justified in saying that the Catholic Church has distorted apostolic teaching.
Jake F. writes:
I suggest your readers, including Mr. Roebuck, look at Hebrews chapter 11. I’ll even use the King James version. :) Look at the repetitions of “By faith person acted”. I’ve edited out a lot of words that are syntactically between the “by faith” and “person acted”, but I haven’t changed the meaning.
I don’t believe that we can justify ourselves by our actions, but it’s clear that faith means action.
Clark Coleman writes:
The crux of the confusion here is that people use the word faith, assuming that faith is a fairly simple concept and we all know what it means without having to define it. I find that most Christians have not really studied the word and its Biblical usage and actually do not know what it means. If we are to use the phrase “faith alone,” it becomes especially important to understand all that is encompassed and implied by the word itself. So, I think that Mr. Roebuck should begin by defining what he thinks the word faith means, to ensure that those who agree or disagree about the phrase faith alone are not simply miscommunicating by talking about different things without realizing it.
James R. writes:
Alan Roebuck is right in the sense that because of humanity’s fallen nature, we cannot “earn” our way into heaven by good works. Only our faith in God and God’s grace can do that. But we demonstrate this faith by following the teachings as best we can. We don’t demonstrate this faith by simply believing but not letting that belief affect our lives. We demonstrate this faith by living it, by living Christ’s teachings.
However Alan Roebuck’s larger point I think was that we do not demonstrate this faith through the government, through collectivity. Government is not charity and mercy, government is not caring and compassion, and those who use government for this do so by way of absolving themselves from responsibility to carry out these acts of faith towards our fellows.
Ferg writes:
As an Anglican I tend on the whole to lean toward the Catholic perspective. However, when it comes to good works I always end up asking myself: “Are my sins so light, so minor in nature that my poor efforts can make any difference in the balance, or are my sins so black that only the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, only the blood of someone so pure can ever hope to blot out the ugly stains on my soul.” Not much to choose from, from my perspective. Nothing I or most of us can do can make ourselves even worthy of the sacrifice. We must just accept our fallen nature and have faith in the generosity of Christ. Are good works a good thing? Sure, but primarily to enhance and beautify our life here on earth.
Alan Roebuck writes (in response to D. from Seattle and LA):
Thanks for continuing the discussion about Christian teaching that my essay started.
D. in Seattle writes “So where’s the distortion [in Roman and Orthodox teaching]?” Chiefly this: in failing to make it clear that justification is by faith alone, and not by “deeds of the law” (Romans 3:20.)
Of course, this must be understood correctly. “Justification” is having a right standing before God, being accounted righteous by God, even though it is the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, not our own righteousness. See, e.g., Romans 4.
And “faith” means more than belief. The faith that saves is a trust in Christ that is based on knowledge about Him, especially a trust that He will save us. Saving faith is a multifaceted trust in Christ, in the Bible that He inspired and that testifies to Him and in the teachings that it contains. This trust leads the believer to become a new man, to be indwelled with God’s Spirit, to be adopted as a son or daughter of God, to have a desire to please God and to serve his neighbor, and on and on. Salvation is infinitely faceted, but the root cause is faith.
D. said, “Faith and work go together towards our salvation.” But the New Testament says clearly that salvation is by God pardoning our sins because of the work of Christ on the Cross, and not because of our deeds. See e.g., Ephesians 2:8,9. Therefore good deeds must have some other role to play.
This is where the Reformation concept of the three uses of the law comes in. Here, “the law” means whatever God commands in Scripture, at least those commandments that apply to us today. When God tells us “Do X,” we obviously should do X, but why? In order to be saved?
No, not if justification is by faith alone. Instead, the law has a threefold use: To show us that we do not meet God’s standards and therefore need a Savior (see, e.g., Romans 7:7), to form the basis of civil government, and to show Christians what a good work is so that they can glorify God. Good works are a result of salvation, not its cause. Indeed, when Paul says in Phillippians 2:12 that we are to “work out [our] own salvation with fear and trembling,” the very next verse says “for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure,” showing that ultimately salvation is of God, not man.
D. also said what Catholics and Orthodox always say about the Bible: the Church created it, and therefore the Church is a higher authority than the Bible.
If the Bible is solely the work of man, this view would be correct. But if the Bible is God’s communication to man then it cannot be correct. A verbal communication from God has a higher authority than a human being or institution simply because God is higher than man.
Also, to say that the Church created the Bible is a serious error. The Church identified the books of the Bible as God’s word and rejected other “candidates” as not being God’s word, but it did not make the Bible. The church was not analogous to a legislature, it was analogous to a scientist.
What I mean is that a legislature has the authority to make up laws that would not exist otherwise, and the analogy would be the Church making up Scripture that would not exist otherwise. But a scientist only identifies a reality that exists independently of him. The Church did not write the New Testament. The Apostles (or, in the case of Luke, Acts and Mark, their associates) did. The Church only recognized the books of the New Testament to be Scripture. They did not make them Scripture.
Consider: Would it have been possible for the Church to have declared the so-called Gospel of Thomas to be part of Scripture? If the Church is the highest authority, the answer would have to be “yes, if the early Church leaders wanted to.” But if the answer is “No, the church could not have declared Thomas to be Scripture, and it could only have declared the actual books of the Bible to be Scripture,” then Scripture is higher than the Church. Which it would have to be, if it really is from God.
James N. said “Faith IS a work.” Well, it is a work if “work” means “doing something.” But when we say salvation is by faith and not by works we mean that salvation is not by obeying the law of God. Since there is no 11th commandment reading “Thou shalt have faith in Jesus Christ,” faith does not count as a “work” in this sense. On the other hand, it is not “Salvation by nothing.” You do have to do something: have faith in Christ. But on the other hand, faith is a gift of God, as Ephesians 2:8,9 says.
More could be said, but this will have to suffice for now.
D. from Seattle writes:
Thank you for posting my reply to Alan and for expanding on it. I would have made the same points you did, but I wanted to keep it short. Now since we’re continuing with this topic, a few very brief points to add.
Alan said: “Jesus is transformed from a Savior Who bore and atoned for our sins on the Cross to a “life coach” who shows us a better way to live.”
Jesus isn’t transformed from Savior to a life coach; for us, he is both at all times. For the people who were His followers during His Earthly ministry, He was the life coach and after Resurrection they realized He was also the Savior. We don’t have an excuse not to realize He is both.
When Alan talks about confessional or creedal Protestantism as an antidote for Protestant infidelity, and affirms that confessional Protestant churches have to have catechism, liturgy, and church discipline, he is describing a type of church that is essentially Catholic in its practice. Well, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck …
Felicie C. writes:
You say: “Mr. Roebuck may reply that Jesus said that all his disciples needed to do was to “believe” in him. But what does “believe” mean? It’s not just “faith,” i.e., a state of saying to oneself, “I believe that Jesus is who he says he is and that he has come for my salvation.” Belief in him is all the things quoted above and more—it’s committing to him and living through him.”
For Martin Luther, faith was what you said, the whole “living-though” thing, not just the cognitive state of mind. As I understand it, from reading his writings and commentary on his writings, faith for him was an act based on belief, not a belief alone. [LA replies: Possibly you and I are in agreement here. I think a large part of the problem comes from thinking of faith as solely a cognitive state, rather than as an entire orientation of oneself, including one’s behavior. If we understand faith in this more comprehensive sense, perhaps some of the disagreement between Protestants and Catholics can be resolved. Also, to me, a big problem with Protestantism starting with Luther has been the excessive focus on oneself and one’s sins and one’s salvation—“How am I doing? Have I gotten saved?”—rather than on simply following Christ and not being so concerned about oneself.]
In modern technical terms, it could be said to constitute a hand-shaking protocol. I am on one side—God is on the other. Here is what Paul Althaus writes in “The Theology of Martin Luther”: ” … faith and the promise of God belong together … For Luther then faith means accepting God’s promise from the heart and taking a chance on it. Faith is an act of the will with which a man ‘holds to’ the word of promise” (p. 43). And how specifically do I “take a chance on it”? Well, I grow in Christ as a Christian. And living as a Christian involves, among other things, helping my neighbor. Another quote from the same book: “Just as God neither needs not wants me to offer anything directly to him except my faith, so I need do nothing else in order to receive salvation from God except that I receive his grace in faith … But my neighbor needs my works; he still does not have enough. For his sake—not for mine or for the sake of my salvation—I must use my life to serve my neighbor” (p. 134).
So you still perform good works, But you perform them because you are moved to do so, as a person who grows in Christ, but not because you have to do so for your salvation. The emphasis is different.
Bob S. writes:
My understanding of Catholic doctrine is that if we have faith we are saved by the grace of God. God’s grace is available to all and constantly urges us to faith. We cannot earn Heaven by good works. Good works alone cannot force God to save us because of our imperfection and state of sin.
However, the Church teaches that a person of faith automatically, unavoidably and inevitably does good works. He is also liable to sin. A person who does no good works does not have faith despite what he might say or believe. A person who does good works may or may not have faith and may or may not be saved.
Sam writes:
I appreciate Alan Roebuck’s commentaries, but in this case I think he gets the theology wrong. (I am a conservative Catholic and a convert from liberal Protestantism.) Mr. Roebuck contends that Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy distort the teachings of the apostles, and yet he defends the doctrine of salvation sola fide, which is almost certainly an innovation of the 16th century that previous generations of Christians would have regarded as a dangerous heresy. One need not even appeal to Tradition or the Magistereum in order to appreciate this, because there is so much clear scriptural evidence to the contrary. Moreover, to claim that the apostles preached salvation through faith alone is back-projection in defiance of all historical evidence to the contrary. The writings of the early Christians and the Church fathers all clearly teach that one can be deprived of saving grace through grave or “mortal” sin and not just through doctrinal infidelity.
In a way, I think the conservative mainline Protestant is in a precarious dialectical position. On the one hand, he cannot endorse the totality of historical Christian teaching because he believes that it is admixed with the “unbiblical” distortions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. And yet he cannot simply claim that private interpretation is solely [?] the rule of faith, because the liberal Protestant can claim exactly the same and for similar reasons. Thus, he must appeal to some authoritative reading of the scriptures which is expressed in the form of something like the 39 articles or the Westminster Confession. But whence sola scriptura? These extra-biblical documents and articles of faith are binding because of … what, exactly? The only way the conservative Protestant can arrest the slide into liberal infidelity is by appealing to something that plays the same ecclesial role as either sacred Tradition or the Magistereum. Thus, the conservative Protestant affirms the theological authority of Tradition in practice even as he denies its authority in word.
Jim C. writes:
This concept is called sola fide, discussed at Wikipedia. The great Martin Luther’s principal contribution to the history of theological thought is herein encapsulated.
Dale S. writes:
I am reminded of Reformed theologian John Armstrong’s summary statement, “We are saved by faith alone but not a faith that is alone.”
November 11
Alan Roebuck writes:
Here are more contributions to the discussion of Protestantism. To keep it brief, I only mention points that require correction or clarification.
One general point. All the uncertainties mentioned in the discussion can be clarified, and all the disagreements successfully countered, if one know the creeds and confessions, along with the attendant literature that clarify and expand on them. This is why we need creedal Protestantism.
Debra C. wrote:
… the whole world is declared innocent … The whole world is redeemed by Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. But not the whole world will accept this truth; they will deny Him and perish for their unbelief.
But if all were declared innocent then nobody would be guilty and then nobody would be damned, because people are damned by their deeds, not their unbelief. And since some are damned, not all are declared innocent. Both Lutherans and the Reformed hold this view. But perhaps Debra is using a figure of speech rather than precise theological language.
Clark Coleman asks me to define what I mean by “faith.” I am using it in the Biblical sense: faith means a trust in Christ that is based on both knowledge and assent to that knowledge. This is the faith that is a gift from God, and that saves.
By the way, the historic formulation is actually “Justification by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.” Faith is part of a “package deal.”
D. also said,
When Alan talks about confessional or creedal Protestantism as an antidote for Protestant infidelity, and affirms that confessional Protestant churches have to have catechism, liturgy, and church discipline, he is describing a type of church that is essentially Catholic in its practice. Well, if it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck …
Confessional Protestant churches do explicitly label themselves [lower case] catholic, because they follow the mainstream of historic Christianity. Even the “controversial” doctrines such as justification by faith alone are found in the Bible and in the early Church Fathers.
Sam wrote that salvation sola fide “is almost certainly an innovation of the 16th century that previous generations of Christians would have regarded as a dangerous heresy” and “to claim that the apostles preached salvation through faith alone is back-projection in defiance of all historical evidence to the contrary.”
But in the New Testament, the Apostles teach justification by faith alone. For example, Ephesians 2: 8,9:
For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
And the entire Epistle to the Galatians is the Apostle Paul enraged that church leaders would dare to teach that salvation requires anything in addition to faith. And some of the early Church Fathers supported this doctrine. Of course, some of the Fathers opposed it. (Showing the need for a higher authority, the Bible.) Justification by faith (as accurately defined) is not a 16th Century innovation.
Sam also said:
Thus, [the Protestant] must appeal to some authoritative reading of the scriptures which is expressed in the form of something like the 39 articles or the Westminster Confession. But whence sola scriptura? These extra-biblical documents and articles of faith are binding because of … what, exactly?
It is easy to resolve the dilemma: Scripture is the highest authority, but it is not the only authority, and it cannot be fully understood by the untrained. Therefore we need church councils, creeds and confessions, elders, pastors, and teachers to help us understand Scripture and to lead us in our walk with Christ. But Scripture is the highest authority, and secondary authorities have authority only to the extent that they faithfully summarize biblical teaching, or teach what Scripture teaches or discharge their biblically-defined duties (whichever applies to that particular authority.)
Sam also wrote: “Thus, the conservative Protestant affirms the theological authority of Tradition in practice even as he denies its authority in word.”
We oppose Catholic Tradition where it contradicts Scripture, and we affirm a tradition based on the Bible as the highest authority. We also point out that Catholic Tradition does not have a concrete instantiation. There is no unchanging Big Book of Catholic Tradition in the Vatican basement. In practice, Catholic “Tradition” means whatever happens to be on the books right now, but it will be changed in the future. We Protestants do not endorse a blank check.
November 13
Art F. writes:
I’m afraid Mr. Roebuck needs to learn a little more about Catholicism before he starts explaining it to others. Most of what he says about it is false.
I shall say his last three paragraphs are completely nonsensical and self-contradictory. That is because Protestantism—all of it—is inherently flawed.
He writes: “But Scripture is the highest authority, and secondary authorities have authority only to the extent that they faithfully summarize biblical teaching, or teach what Scripture teaches or discharge their biblically-defined duties (whichever applies to that particular authority.)” OK. And who decides whether “they faithfully summarize biblical teaching?” Mr. Roebuck? His Protestant friends? Jimmy Swaggert. Charles Stanley. Bennie Hinn? Joel Osteen? Who? Just who is the authority to which we all should appeal for answers to our questions about the Bible? And where did that person to whom we appeal get his authority to teach? From Mr. Roebuck?
Mr. Roebuck says Scripture “cannot be fully understood by the untrained.” Very good. Who does the training? Who has the authority to do the training? And who gives them that authority? Mr. Roebuck? Osteen? Swaggert? The Lutheran Church? Episcopal? Lesbian Episcopal priestesses? John Shelby Spong?
As with his hero Luther, who peddled an illogical doctrine, Mr. Roebuck’s illogic is a consequence of denying authority while simultaneously claiming it. Luther became angry when his followers denied his authority. Why shouldn’t they? He promulgated the doctrine that every man is a priest, and any man can interpret the Bible any way he wants. He taught that sin matters not. Read his works.
There are hundreds of Protestant denominations. Tell me, Mr. Roebuck, which one is correct, and how do you know? And why should I believe you? You say tomayto, I say tomahto.
The essence of Lutheranism and Protestantism is that there is no authority. The essence of Protestantism is that it does not matter what a man believes because God finds all Christian denominations equally pleasing. If I am wrong, and you claim he finds only one that pleasing and correct, which one is it? Yours? Osteen’s? This is why your discussion of “authority” and “training” makes no sense.
Once Luther claimed he owed no allegiance to any human authority other than himself, he lost any claim to authority or to teach authoritatively. And that is why Lutheranism and Protestantism degenerated into hundreds if not thousands of denominations. And I again pose my challenge: Which one of them is teaching authoritatively, how do you know, and why should I believe you?
Finally, the doctrines of sola scriptura and sola fides are found nowhere in a real Bible.
If Mr. Roebuck is going to discuss theology, history and the Catholic Church, he needs to ensure that he understands it himself. At a minimum, he need to present arguments that are not fatally flawed with self-contradiction.
Debra C. writes:
Alan writes, in reply to my statement he referenced:
“But if all were declared innocent then nobody would be guilty and then nobody would be damned, because people are damned by their deeds, not their unbelief. And since some are damned, not all are declared innocent. Both Lutherans and the Reformed hold this view. But perhaps Debra is using a figure of speech rather than precise theological language.”
I have no claim to precision in theological terminology, that’s for sure. But what I do understand is the Lutheran teaching found in this passage: “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
I remember the day, after weeks, if not months, of haggling with a Lutheran pastor over the two concepts: all are condemned; all are forgiven. Let me expound: Original sin condemns us all; our daily sinful actions merely reflect the original sin that inheres in us. We are all children of Adam. We are all condemned and guilty before God. Nothing we can do can change that fact.
But we are all equally forgiven; Christ’s sacrifice on the cross takes the guilt of all humankind and washes us clean, covering us in Christ’s righteousness. But you will not benefit from your redemption if you deny it; if you deny that Christ died for you; if you turn to Buddha or Mohammed or your own ‘good’ works to argue your merit before the throne of God—it will not count in the court of God Almighty.
The only way to the Father is through the Son.
People are not damned by their deeds. They enter the world condemned—remember: the wages of sin is death; that is why even unborn children die. Original sin’s effects affect even the most ‘innocent’ among us.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarify my remarks.
John Dempsey writes:
Does human reason have anything to say about the nature of God and what it means to be justified through our faith in him? Christian faith itself comes from the belief in the crucified and risen Christ. It is that vision alone, which we gain by his grace, that saves us and allows us to live in him and through him. If we are thus living in him and through him, he transforms us with a pure and regenerate heart, which in turn, viscerally guides us through the complex details of this life on earth; we will intuitively know what our good works should be. The realities and obligations of our salvation become elemental. There is nothing propositional about the nature of faith and our salvation which stems from that faith—except for belief in the crucified and risen Christ.
As Mr. Roebuck has correctly stated: “Good works are a result of salvation, not its cause”.
Mark N. writes:
Here’s a very interesting point that I don’t believe anybody has brought up on the subject of Sola Scriptura. The Biblical canon was not codified until 373 A.D. Moreover, it was Catholic bishops who decided what books went into the canon. So how can one deny the authority of the bishops of the Universal Church and then appeal to Scriptural authority only, when it was the Catholic bishops who decided what books were legitimately inspired and belonged in Scripture? It’s utter nonsense and totally illogical. [LA replies: This point has already been brought up by D. from Seattle and effectively parried by Mr. Roebuck. The Church did not write the Bible. It only selected for the canon books which had already been written, books which by their own inherent quality and authority self-evidently deserved to be selected.]
Once Protestants revolted against the authority of the Church’s Magisterium, all theological hell broke loose. Before his death Luther stated: “Any plow boy is permitted to interpret Scripture any way he pleases.” Exactly. The Bible became a religious Rorschsch card upon which any person could project their religious beliefs, and this problem exists unto this day. Much of modern American non-denominational Christianity is based on dispensationalism, a theory of Biblical interpretation thought up only one hundred and fifty years ago by a defrocked Anglican priest named John Nelson Darby. This heresy resulted in millions of Americans believing they are going to be raptured when Jesus comes back, their cars careening out of control and their clothes being left on the freeway during rush hour. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Mennonites, Congregationalists do not believe in this theological gobbly-gook, but because some fellow in the 19th century did, millions of Americans are caught up in heretical beliefs.
As the Vatican views the situation, the only religious communities that constitute true Churches are the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox. The rest are brothers in Christ, but separated because of the tragedy of the Protestant Revolt (Reformation if you like.) Protestants are not considered true churches, but rather ecclesial communions. They lack Apostolic authority, valid religious orders and priesthood. This enrages many Protestants, but as the Catholic philosopher and Calvanist convert Peter Kreeft once said: “The Catholic Church delivers God’s mail, but doesn’t have the authority to edit it.” [LA replies: But you are ignoring the many Church teachings that have no basis in Scripture, e.g., the immaculate conception of Mary. So how can it be said that the Church is merely delivering God’s mail? Besides, doesn’t the Church specifically claim its own authority, independent of scripture? It seems to me that both the Church and the Protestant denominations teach doctrines that are not in Scripture.]
Kevin O. writes:
On the subject of “Christian confusion,” I have always perceived the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be the root of modern liberal arguments that begin with the premiss: “But Jesus never said anything about…. “
I believe this is resolved by considering that Christ founded a Church rather than dictating the Gospels.
November 15
Alan Roebuck writes:
Art F., following the Catholic playbook, asks, in effect, “How do you Protestants know the truth about Christianity?” His question must be answered because if no other answer is known, many people will conclude (incorrectly) that we need Rome to restore order.
(Below, the abbreviation RCC means Roman Catholic Church, and RC means Roman Catholic.)
The quick answer to Art’s challenge is that there are no glib answers. And the Catholic answer—“You can only know the truth if you believe what we say”—is not valid. At best, this answer just displaces the question onto the RCC. The RC answer is only known to be correct if we know that the RCC has the authority she says she does. And how do we know that?
So how do we know the truth about Christianity? It’s important to understand the difference between the objective situation and the subjective situation. The Bible is God’s Word to us regardless of whether anyone recognizes it. That’s the objective situation. And if the RCC had supreme earthly authority, this would also be objective.
But there is also a subjective element: How can I know it? And this is where there are no glib answers. Since man is not omniscient, he can be wrong. And therefore the basic answer to Art’s question is that we must examine the evidence in order to draw the best conclusion we can. We must read what the wise men (or the allegedly wise men) say, and do our best to draw correct conclusions.
Refuting the Catholic claim to authority in this domain represents a positive step. If Rome is just another opinion-bearer rather than the one bearing God’s Seal of Approval, then we judge Rome as we would any other alleged authority: by the evidence. And we are free to consider other authority claims with an open mind.
When we consider how much is at stake, we must place the burden of proof on Rome. And there is no valid evidence that the RCC has the authority she says she has: The “keys of the kingdom” passage (Matthew 16:19) is ambiguous at best, and it is the only verse that even appears to support the specific RCC authority claims. The early church did not acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as supreme leader of Christendom. RC doctrine has changed greatly over time, indicating theological innovation. RC leaders have directly contradicted each other. And so on.
Even more to the point: The RC authority claim is ultimately based on their claim that Jesus Christ Himself gave some of His authority to the officers of a specific human organization that has persisted to this day. And how would we know that God gave this authority? Only if He clearly told us, in words. And He has not.
Saying “Sola scriptura and the other Protestant solas are not in the Bible, therefore we need the authority of Rome” misses the point. Since man is not omniscient, even if the Bible contained the exact phrase “The Bible is the highest earthly authority, and the only infallible authority, on every subject of which it speaks” (the actual meaning of sola scriptura), we would not believe it on the authority of any human institution. Human institutions make mistakes. Human institutions, including churches, teachers and creeds, must ultimately be judged by the Bible, God’s Word.
Do most people decide which authority they will trust by carefully examining as much of the evidence as they can? Not exactly. People do care whether their authorities are proclaiming truth, but most people look for an authority they find appealing (probably for mostly subjective reasons) and then they trust it, at least until it says so many things they find objectionable that they stop trusting it. Most people (and properly so) automatically believe the religion of their parents, at least until such time as they hear of enough objections that they begin to reject it. But we are not discussing how most people operate. We are discussing how Christian authority is properly to be validated.
RC apologists also exaggerate the amount of Protestant confusion and under-report the amount of Catholic disorder. People who are known as Catholics have at least as great a diversity of beliefs and practices as Protestants. It’s just that the RCC covers this disorder with an assertion of theoretical unity. And as for Protestant diversity, most of these people don’t know genuine Protestant doctrine, just as most of the Catholic syncretists don’t know Catholic doctrine.
Real (that is, confessional) Protestant bodies are in substantial agreement on the faith, and they do not place each other outside the bounds of (lower-case-o) orthodoxy.
Besides, there is disorder in every human institution. The real question is: Who or what has the highest earthly authority over Christianity? The RC answer is false. The Bible is the highest authority.
Mark N. writes:
Alan Roebuck states: “The real question is: Who or what has the highest earthly authority over Christianity? The RC answer is false. The Bible is the highest authority.”
Which Bible? The Bible with or without the Deutero-Canonical books? For sixteen hundred years the seven Deutero-Canonical books had been part of the Christian canon [LA replies: this is not correct, see below], until Luther decided to remove them five hundred years ago. Why did Luther remove them? Simple, because they didn’t agree with his theology. By what authority could he do this? Good question.
Luther also wanted to remove the Epistle of James, which he called “an epistle of straw.” Why? Because it also didn’t agree with his theology. Moreover, he wanted to remove the Book of Revelation, which Luther said was composed by a “Syriac madman.”
For the overwhelming majority of Church history, most Christians have been unschooled and illiterate. They couldn’t even read Scripture, so it had to be interpreted for them by the Church. When Protestants no longer accepted papal primacy, they made up their own authorities to interpret their new streamlined Protestant Bible to their unschooled and illiterate masses, just like the Catholics before them. Pope or no pope, someone is always required to do the interpretation.
The Bible is necessary, but not sufficient. Before there was a formalized canon, there was an oral tradition passed down by the Apostles. There was no formal canon until four centuries after Jesus died, and even if there was, very few would have had the ability to read it. In short, Sola Scriptura is a fantasy, having no basis in Scripture, or in the writings of the early Church Fathers.
Martin Luther was a brilliant man, but also a vicious neurotic. He obsessed daily about his personal salvation, and eventually found it necessary to tear Christendom asunder to allay his anxieties. He created religious chaos where there once stood one Church, and he opened up the European continent to a century and a half of bloody religious wars.
LA replies:
Mark N. wrote: “For sixteen hundred years the seven Deutero-Canonical books had been part of the Christian canon.”
This is not correct. Even in the pre-Reformation, Catholic Bible, the Apocrypha were designated as non-canonical. Wikipedia’s article on the Apocrypha states:
Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[9] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd “are not in the canon”. In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned “the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon”. He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church “has not received them among the canonical scriptures”.
Thus when Luther removed the Apocrypha from the Bible, he was not removing canonical books from the canon; he was removing non-canonical books from the Bible.
November 16
Alan Roebuck writes:
In reply to Mark N., the basic principle here is that with the exception of the period when Jesus or his apostles were on the Earth, Scripture is the highest authority. (The highest earthly authority, that is; God is the highest Authority.) This is because nowadays, only Scripture is God speaking directly to us. That there have been occasional times of confusion over which books constitute Scripture does not nullify the basic principle. And Catholic apologists often exaggerate the amount of confusion that results from not acknowledging Rome’s authority. Besides, the Catholic solution to the problem is not valid.
I also want to respond to Kevin O’s statement, “Christ founded a Church rather than dictating the Gospels.”
He appears to be saying that the organization preceded the message. If so, this is both antiscriptural and illogical. It’s illogical because organizations are never founded just for the purpose of founding an organization. The purpose of an organization is prior to the organization, both temporally and logically.
The purpose of the church is to teach the gospel and the rest of the Words of God, administer the sacraments and exercise church discipline. But before there was a church to spread the Word, there was Christ the God man, his teaching, his crucifixion and his resurrection.
Also, the New Testament shows the Apostles traveling throughout the Roman World and proclaiming, not “Join our organization,” but rather, “Be saved from the wrath of God by the forgiveness of your sins through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.” The message creates the church, not vice versa.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 03, 2011 08:10 PM | Send
|