hedrick@aramis.rutgers.edu (10/23/89)
Watching the various Catholic/Protestant dialogs over the last few months, I've begun to think that there's been fairly substantial convergence on the issue of justification. I just took at look again at the Baptist Faith and Message (of which I have only the 1925 edition), some basic Methodist documents, and the relevant section of the canons of the Council of Trent. It seems to me that they are saying *very* similar things. I'll quote from the Baptist Faith and Message, which says it most concisely: "Justification is God's gracious and full acquital upon principles of righteousness of all sinners who believe in Christ. This blessing is bestowed, not in consideration of any works of righteousness which we have done, but through the redemption which is in and through Jesus Christ. It brings us into a state of most blessed peace and favor with God, and secures every other needed blessing. The blessings of salvation are made free to all by the Gospel. It is the duty of all to accept them by penitent and obedient faith. Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teacher, Savior, and Lord." As far as I can tell, this is in fact consistent with Trent. It is *not* consistent with the Reformers, but I'll get into this below. Protestants have generally accused Catholics of believing in some sort of salvation by works, and Catholics have generally feared that the Protestant concept of "salvation by faith alone" denied other parts of God's work of salvation. I think these fears are at least partly groundless. Note that I am not saying that there have been no such abuses. However I am trying to see the best representatives of both sides. Do Catholics believe in salvation by works? The whole issue of works is complex, because everyone agrees that Christians should do good deeds. The question is their precise significance in salvation. "If anyone says that man can be justified before God by his own works, whether done by his own natural powers or through the teaching of the law, without divine grace through Jesus Christ, let him be anathema." (Trent) In the rest of the document, it seems that Trent is very clear that God's grace goes before any "cooperation" or other act that we may do. However we are required to assent to God's grace. Clearly there is no concept of any merit on our part that isn't given to us by God, but we do have the power to accept or reject grace. This seems quite consistent with what I saw in the Protestant documents mentioned, even if the wording is somewhat different. What does "salvation by faith" mean to Protestants? Here is what Trent seems to think it means: "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema." This is a direct attack on the Reformers' views. But is it an attack on modern Protestants? I think not. It seems clear that most Protestants now believe that we have the power to accept or reject salvation. That is, before God saves us, we must consent to be saved. I believe this is quite consistent with Trent's requirement that we must be "prepared and disposed by the action of his own will". Neither Trent nor modern Protestants consider this something that happens independent of God's grace. God's grace comes first. But both reject the Reformer's concept: "Man's will is like a beast standing between two riders. If God rides, it wills and goes where God wills. ... If Satan rides, it wills and goes where Satan goes. Nor may it choose to which rider it will run, or which it will seek; but the riders themselves fight to decide who shall have and hold it." (Luther, Bondage of the Will, W.A. 658) Both Trent and most modern Protestants believe that we can choose our rider. I do not say that we have agreement on all issues. In particular the Catholic view of how Baptism is involved in all of this seems rather strange to Protestants. Baptism by Desire and similar ideas may have rescued us from some of the more serious possible problems. But there are still things that need to be dealt with. However sacramental theology is a tougher nut to crack, and I'm not dealing with it right now. Now, as I hinted above, I see one interesting aspect of all of this: The convergence seems to be possible because most Protestants have abandoned the concepts of the Reformers. This has complicated the dialog immensely. It complicates things because Protestants are using terms like "salvation by faith alone", leading the Catholics to think they are dealing with the positions held by the Reformers. But in fact they are not. The problem, of course, is election. Luther and Calvin both believed that humans could contribute absolutely nothing to their salvation. They still believed that once we were saved, God restored to us the ability to do good. But this was a consequence of our salvation. The basic decision is made before that, and we are in some sense passive bystanders in that decision. The question, as Trent clearly sees it, is whether we have to say "yes" on our own before God can save us. (The term used in the Reformation discussions tended to be whether we "cooperate" with God's grace.) Again, no one is suggesting salvation by works. In any case things begin with God's grace. However the sequence is different: For the Catholics: God's grace starts. He restores us to the point where we now can choose. Now we either accept or reject God's free offer of grace. If we accept we are saved, if not, not. For the Reformers, this was unacceptable. For them, until we are saved, we will turn down any offer from God. So the sequence is simple: God's grace brings us to the point of accepting salvation, or it does not. He does not wait on our choice. Assuming we are one of the elect, he moves us to accept salvation. At that point our regeneration begins, but until then, it is not safe for God to give us any choices. As far as I can see, most Protestants no longer believe in election. They now believe, as the Baptists testify, that "Nothing prevents the salvation of the greatest sinner except his own voluntary refusal to accept Jesus Christ as teach, Savior, and Lord." That is, that it is our choice that determines whether we are saved or not. This is Catholic doctrine. That doesn't mean it is wrong. But it generates a good deal of confusion. Protestants continue to use terminology such as "sola fide" taken from the Reformation while accepting the position of Trent. There seems to have been some change in the Catholic position as well. Luther's most serious opponent on this issue was Eramus. If I understand Erasmus' view (and I have seen it only in the secondary literature: I didn't read his defense of free will myself), I would characterize it is "semi-Pelagian". It seems to differ from Orange, which is clearly semi-Augustinian, and possibly Trent, which can be read either way. The semi-Pelagian view seems to have suggested yet another sequence, where man starts things out by making some gesture in God's direction. This opens the way for God to be able to give his grace. This differs from the position that I believe Catholics generally now take, where God's grace goes before any response we make. This change complicates things as well. The term "cooperation" was used in the Reformation debates. It suggested to the Reformers a merit that was independent of God's grace and cooperated with it. I believe that in current Catholic usage, there is no concept of our having anything independent of God. However I think it likely that some Catholics during the Reformation did have such a concept. It should be clear to those who know me that I do not agree with the view on which everybody seems to have converged. My views are closer to those of the Reformers. However what I'm trying to do at the moment is get clear in my mind what people actually believe.
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (10/25/89)
Here's my two cents on all this.
In general, I hold somewhat to the views of the Reformers, and tend to
Calvin where he differs with Luther.
I do not, nay, firmly do not believe that we can *choose* to follow God
or that God's acts of grace can be resisted. God is the sovreign, who
is all-powerful in acheiving what he wants.
It is not our free choice that keeps us from God's grace, it is, therefore,
our faults. And these faults are faults we must bear the responsibility for.
But the problem with the traditional view of election, and why most modern
Protestants (including myself) disagree with its original formulation, is that
it isn't *fair*.
So where do we stand? On the weight of personal experience, I can say we do
not choose to follow God, God chooses us. And, I see around me people God
apparently did not choose. Where to go from here, and still salvage the idea
of fairness? Well, I hold to asomewhat altered view of what it means to have
faith. I would say that you can have faith without realizing it. That sounds
a little strange, so let me give you an analogy. Suppose you grow up knowing
a kind man in your neighborhood, Mr Smith. You see Mr Smith, and you have faith
in his existence. Now, many decades later, you learn that Mr Smith is really
Mr Jones. He was living under an assumed name with an assumed identity; in
reality there never was a Mr Smith.
You can certainly be said to have had faith in Mr Jones' existence,
and yet you would never have acknowledged the existence of Mr Jones. Similarly,
you *would* have acknowledged faith in Mr Smith's existence, and yet he never
existed. So, your faith and your understanding of it differ. I believe that
(get ready) all people have faith in God. They may not understand it, and they
may not acknowledge it, but they have it. God chooses to be known, so some
(those we call Christians) are given a faith that leads to profession and
acknowledgement.
This differs somewhat from the orthodox position, of course, but not
seriously. It does not indicate that, really, very much of the doctrine
of the Reformers be altered.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
Telephone: +1 505 292 0001 / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[Like many other Christians, I have a problem with the idea that from
the foundation of the universe God intended most people to be damned.
But I think we need stronger grounds than "it isn't fair", since it
seems to me that Job, Romans 9, many of the Psalms, and some of
Christ's parables (e.g. the laborers in the field, Mat 20, and the
Prodigal Son) make it clear that God may not always be fair in any way
that is visible to us. I think if you're going to take the view that
God saves everyone, you are better off to argue from various
statements that Christ died for all (e.g. Rom 5:18) than to raise
"fairness" to some sort of axiom. Even then there are number of
problems you have to deal with, if you want to be consistent with the
Biblical view of judgement. --clh]tom@dvnspc1.Dev.Unisys.COM (Tom Albrecht) (10/27/89)
OFM has written: > [Like many other Christians, I have a problem with the idea that from > the foundation of the universe God intended most people to be damned. ... Let me just make the observation that this idea presupposes that the end of the world is very near, and that the church will continue to be less than effective in evangelizing the nations. While I don't know what the total number of persons that have ever lived is, I think its fair to say that a considerable percentage of them are alive today. I might suggest that more effective work by the church could, in fact, turn the numbers around. And, God willing, we could see the kingdom of God spread out as a tree covering the whole earth (Matt. 13:32). But that's just my postmillenial optimism talking. [PS added later --clh] I just wanted to point out that many (most) of the Reformed/Calvinistic theologians of the 18 & 19th cent. in America were postmillenialists. Folks like Hodge and Warfield at Princeton, as well as Dabney and Thornwell in the Southern Presbyerian Church, and the Baptist, A.H. Strong. I'm not sure how things were in England or on the continent, but wasn't Spurgeon postmillenial? -- Tom Albrecht [This may come as a shock to some of you, but many Christians don't know what the terms premillennial, postmillennial, etc., mean. From my handy-dandy theological dictionary: "Millennialism refers generally to the belief in the thousand-year period (millennium) in which the Kingdom of God is to flourish and proper. Millennialists tend to fall into camps: (1) those who believe that the millennium will follow the parousia or "second coming" of Christ (premillennialism); (2) those who believe that the millennium will precede the parousia of Christ (postmillennialism). .. Generally premillennialists believe that shortly before the second coming the world will be marked by extraordinary tribulation and evil ... [Then Christ comes, and reigns over the 1000 year period of peace and order. Then Satan is loosed for a brief period. Then the final judgement. --clh] ... Postmillennialists generally have taught that the millennium will precede the parousia of Christ. There will be a golden age of the reign of the Church on earth that will be followed by a conflict between good and evil and the coming of Christ." --clh]