51% Protestant

# on 03 Jul 2007
Dan Wallace - Contra Mundane & Evangelicalism & Roman Catholicism

Comments (82)

Related Posts

• 51% Protestant
• First Things Blogcast #4: Catholics vs. Evangelicals on Justification
• An Emerging Understanding of “Orthodox” – Part 4: Are Catholics Orthodox?
• Theological Word of the Day: Perseverance of the Saints
• Theological Word of the Day: Sola Fide

82 Responses to “51% Protestant”

1. Chad Winters on 03 Jul 2007 at 6:13 pm #

   Great points Dan, I think it is very important to know who we agree with on the Essentials and that those are the same people we can debate the fine points with for both our edification.

   On the other hand, its seems like Evangelicalism is the only group taking it on the chin for this one. Historically its seems that Evangelicals were the more open and inclusionary in this regard. The RC and EO tended to more exclusionary and require 100% adherence to their dogma/doctrine even if it was way outside the essentials and out on a hermeneutical limb. For me to be a Roman Catholic I have to agree with all of their more questionable beliefs not just the essentials (which I agree are really the only important ones when it comes to are of the Faith or not).

   Ideally I think we should be a United Orthodox Church with agreement on the basics of christianity and collegial debate about everything else.

   ……considering how Evangelicals combine across demoninations with doctrines that vary widely on the non-essentials (Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal, etc) I think evangelicalism is the closest we have to the UOC. I don’t see the RC or EO churches moving that direction.
   I like a lot of things about the Roman Catholic Church, but still to be a Roman Catholic I have to agree that the Pope is infallible (even when he is clearly wrong), and many of the medieval mythologies that crept into the Church that I could not sign off on.

   Evangelicalism is not perfect by any means, but I think they tried to move in the right direction

2. Vance on 03 Jul 2007 at 6:16 pm #

   I think the use of the term “expression of Christianity” is a good way to put it. We are all attempting to piece together all of the aspects of puzzle, and it would be hubris to think we have it all right.

   NT Wright once said that he is sure that part of his theology is wrong. He just doesn’t know which part it is!

   We should all be as humble in our approach to personal theology. Sure, there are some absolutes we must insist upon to be able to call oneself a Christian, but the further I go, the fewer those seem to be.

   I tend toward Arminianism, you are squarely Calvinist, but we are all going to the same heaven, regardless of how wrong our theological niceties might be. And, yes, I think that Roman Catholic will be right there with us (and probably many others we would be shocked to find there as well!).

3. jybnntt on 03 Jul 2007 at 6:54 pm #

   While I do not doubt that there are many faithful Roman Catholics who are regenerate, I have to disagree with this statement:

   “the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith.”

   All three major branches may be happy to use these words, phrases, and sentences affirming their respective faiths, but the question is what do they mean by them? Mormons would use the same words, but they clearly do not mean what Christians do by them.

   Traditional (Tridentine) Roman Catholic theology affirms that salvation is by grace alone, but it is clearly a semi-pelagian/cooperationist system and, therefore, not really an affirmation of grace alone. Also, Roman Catholicism affirms that salvation is by faith, but it denies that justification is by faith alone. Is the gospel still the gospel if justification is by grace plus anything I do?

   I agree that we must be willing to criticize our own traditions, and wider evangelicalism is certainly ripe for criticism. We must also hold to orthodox Christian doctrine with all humility. I am thankful that our God’s mercy is wide and his gospel even reaches some who sit under the false-teaching with regard to Christian fundamentals. I would never go so far as to say that no one who calls himself a Roman Catholic is condemned. But if a person is truly informed, understanding the reality and importance of the doctrinal differences between official Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet elects to remain Roman Catholic, I have to doubt whether that person has any true basis to be assured of his salvation. How can we find true assurance in a false gospel?

4. Vance on 03 Jul 2007 at 7:02 pm #

   Chad, I am not sure if you have discussed this matter with many Catholics lately, but the whole “no salvation outside the Church” dogma is pretty much gone. In fact, the most inclusionary statements I have ever seen in Christendom comes right out of the Catholic Catechism. Somewhere in there it talks about being able to be saved even if they are of a different faith altogether (ie Muslim or Hindu) under certain circumstances. It all ties in with the concept of ignorance of the true Gospel message, etc. They still believe that Jesus is the ONLY way to God, but are open to the idea that someone can be following Jesus’ plan without having specific knowledge that it is what they are doing. Basically an extension of how a person could be saved if they had lived on a desert island in complete isolation from any exposure to the Gospel message, etc.

   When I heard them discussing this on Catholic Answers Live (a Catholic radio show and podcast), I was a bit blown away and must admit that they go further than I would ever feel comfortable going on this point.

5. Dan Wallace on 03 Jul 2007 at 9:46 pm #

   Thank you all for the helpful comments. I do think that Roman Catholicism and eastern Orthodoxy are making strides toward peace with each other. Less than three years ago, the Vatican returned the bones of St. Chrysostom to Constantinople–bones that the Catholics stole in the Crusades. This was a huge step in reconciling these two branches. And, of course, evangelicals and Catholics have been working on some reconciliation, as have Lutherans and Catholics. Further, it is not necessary for a Catholic to agree with everything about Catholicism, just as it is not necessary for an evangelical to agree with everything that evangelicalism stands for. Ever since Vatican II, even priests have been free to disagree with a lot of church dogma. It is still true that evangelicals are, for the most part, more broad minded and accepting of others (but obviously this is not true of all evangelicals–note one of the comments above which apparently condemned all knowledgeable Catholics: would this include Frank Beckwith??), but there are official church positions and there are personal attitudes. They aren’t necessarily the same thing.

6. Vance on 03 Jul 2007 at 11:37 pm #

   Dan, here is a good summary of the Catholic position, and I think it shows that it may not be the evangelicals who are the most accepting of others:

   “At the same time, however, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that through the graces Jesus won for humanity by sacrificing himself on the cross, salvation is possible even for those outside the visible boundaries of the Church. Christians and even non-Christians, if in life they respond positively to the grace and truth that God reveals to them through the mercy of Christ may be saved. This may include awareness of an obligation to become part of the Catholic Church. In such cases, “they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.”[11] Catholics believe that people, even those who are not explicitly Christian, have the moral law written in their hearts, according to Jeremiah 31:33 (prophecy of new covenant): “I will write my law on their hearts.” St. Justin wrote that those who have not accepted Christ but follow the moral law of their hearts (logos) follow God, because it is God who has written the moral law in each person’s heart. Though he may not explicitly recognize it, he has the spirit of Christ. According to Fr. William Most’s article for EWTN (the primary Catholic television network), those who have the spirit of Christ belong to the body of Christ. He writes, “Those who follow the Spirit of Christ, the Logos who writes the law on their hearts, are Christians, are members of Christ, are members of His Church. They may lack indeed external adherence; they may never have heard of the Church. But yet, in the substantial sense, without formal adherence, they do belong to Christ, to His Church.”"

   From the Wikipedia article on Salvation, under the Roman Catholic section.

7. Eriol on 04 Jul 2007 at 8:09 am #

   (FWIW)

   I went from this blog to – hope this works! – Between Two Worlds, where I found the following excerpt from Biola’s Robert Saucy. Saucy, although a former president of the ETS, seems an unlikely candidate to follow Beckwith to Rome.

   I’m presenting this just for heuristic reasons, not intending to support Saucy over Wallace or Wallace over Saucy; it is not meant to be argumentative.

   Here’s Saucy on the difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics:

   They’re the same as they were at the Reformation. There are three significant ones. First is the question of final authority. Protestants hold to sola scriptura [Scripture as their final authority]. For Catholics, the final authority is Scripture as interpreted by the church, that is, the magisterium (the pope and bishops). That’s where Catholicism gets its teachings that can’t be found in Scripture, like veneration of Mary, indulgences and purgatory. Second, Catholics view the church as an extension of Christ’s incarnation. For them, the church is divine as Christ was divine. One result of this is the Catholic proclamation: “Come to the church for salvation, for faith in the church and faith in Christ are one act of faith.” That leads to the third difference: salvation. The Catholic catechism makes it very clear that you are born again and justified through baptism. That means faith plus a certain rite — which is administered by the church — is necessary for salvation. So, the church essentially grants salvation. Although this salvation is “by faith,” additional grace enables us “to work” to attain eternal life. And that’s the problem with saying we speak the same gospel. One of them is clear: Christ did it; we can’t add anything to that. The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.

   Two of my own litmus tests of other denominations or churches are (a) do they preach Christ crucified plus nothing, and (b) if my only exposure to Christianity were through this church or denomination, would I hear the gospel and be saved (election notwithstanding)? The RCC seems to fall short of (a); I’m not sure about (b).

   (/FWIW)

8. Eriol on 04 Jul 2007 at 8:11 am #

   OOPS!

   The Saucy quote ends with “The other one is: Christ did it, but to actually avail yourself of what Christ did you have to do this and this.” The rest, i.e., the two litmus tests, is mine.

9. jybnntt on 04 Jul 2007 at 12:57 pm #

   Dr. Wallace,

   I would have expected better exegesis of my comment from you.

   You wrote:

   “It is still true that evangelicals are, for the most part, more broad minded and accepting of others (but obviously this is not true of all evangelicals–note one of the comments above which apparently condemned all knowledgeable Catholics: would this include Frank Beckwith??)”

   Given the comments that preceded yours, I assume you must be referring to my comment:

   “I would never go so far as to say that no one who calls himself a Roman Catholic is condemned. But if a person is truly informed, understanding the reality and importance of the doctrinal differences between official Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet elects to remain Roman Catholic, I have to doubt whether that person has any true basis to be assured of his salvation. How can we find true assurance in a false gospel?”

   I was careful not to condemn anyone by my statement. I don’t think it is my place to ever pronounce condemnation or salvation upon anyone. That is for the Lord alone. That’s why I worded what I said in a way that simply questions the legitimacy of one’s personal assurance of salvation. Is Frank Beckwith saved? God only knows. Does he have legitimate reasons to be truly assured of his salvation. Not at all. True assurance can only come through the true gospel. Officially speaking, Rome teaches a false gospel.

10. jybnntt on 04 Jul 2007 at 1:02 pm #

    Also, my earlier comment read:

    “I would never go so far as to say that no one who calls himself a Roman Catholic is condemned.”

    That really makes no sense. I misplaced a “no” there.

    It should have read:

    “I would never go so far as to say that one who calls himself a Roman Catholic is condemned.”

11. jybnntt on 04 Jul 2007 at 1:03 pm #

    Eriol,

    I read Saucy’s statement earlier this morning before visiting Parchment and Pen. Very good, and clear.

12. Dan Wallace on 04 Jul 2007 at 2:04 pm #

    Thank you again for the stimulating conversation. Let me clarify a couple of points. First, to jybnntt: although you explicitly deny saying that Catholics are condemned, you say that the “gospel even reaches some who sit under the false-teaching with regard to Christian fundamentals,” and “But if a person is truly informed, understanding the reality and importance of the doctrinal differences between official Roman Catholicism and Protestantism, yet elects to remain Roman Catholic, I have to doubt whether that person has any true basis to be assured of his salvation. How can we find true assurance in a false gospel?”

    Here’s how I exegeted that comment: first, refusal to use particular terminology does not in itself mean that a person does not really mean what that term expresses. To think that it does is to fall prey to the classic lexico-conceptual fallacy (a concept does not occur unless a particular word for that concept is used). The way you did not condemn Catholics is, effectively, to condemn them. You implied that Catholics sponsor false teaching on the fundamentals of the faith. By fundamentals I take it that you mean those truths which are essential to embrace to be saved (if you meant otherwise, please clarify). Ergo, if Catholics support false teaching regarding such matters, then those who consciously do so cannot be saved (according to your argument). How is that not be condemned? Second, when you question not the assurance of salvation, but the basis of assurance of salvation, that also focuses on the core beliefs. Although it is true that you definitely stopped short of pronouncing condemnation on folks like Frank Beckwith (for which I am sure he is grateful!), the net result of your comments seems to lead in only one direction.

    Second, regarding the Saucy statement: normally we would not consider a quotation from a Catholic about evangelicalism to be the best representative of that group, so why would we consider a statement by an evangelical about Catholics to be so? I have a great respect for Bob Saucy, but I don’t think his view represents the whole picture. And, as I said earlier (this also applies to the Wikipedia article), since Vatican II Catholics have been permitted to question much of church dogma and have made statements that disagree with the Vatican. Why, then, do we continue to insist that only Rome can define what a Catholic is? If the shoe were on the other foot, I’m sure we would object loudly! As a case in point, take a look at the Augsburg Confession–the first Protestant doctrinal statement. One would expect Luther and Melanchthon to have carefully crafted that confession so that the three solas of the Reformation would be clearly articulated. Why, then, does the Augsburg Confession say that “baptism is necessary to salvation”? Doesn’t that sound like works have been added to grace? Yet this is Luther! I spoke to an evangelical Lutheran pastor about this. His response was that “necessary” does not mean “essential.” Now, we may wish to quibble with him over his terminology, but the fact is that even good Lutherans can disagree over the meaning of the Augsburg Confession at a crucial juncture. Why is it that we won’t allow Catholics to do the same? At the risk of sounding uncharitable, perhaps we need to get to know several Catholics. We may be surprised–one or two of them just might be genuine believers!

    Third, overall, what I said originally still stands: instead of throwing stones, we need to explore what we have in common with Catholics and the Orthodox. It is hardly a false gospel when they believe as we do about the death and resurrection of the theanthropic person, and it is extreme eisegesis to lump Catholics and Orthodox in with Mormons on these issues. You know well that the Mormons could not sign the great creeds of the church, yet the Catholics and the Orthodox can. We have far more in common with RC and EO than with LDS. I think we can even learn from them.

13. Carrie Hunter on 04 Jul 2007 at 2:26 pm #

    This, of course, raises a significant issue: If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve? …

    With all due respect I would politely disagree here. I think depending on the theological distinctions in question, the boundaries of heaven and hell are defined.

    While we have a common ground with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches on very important doctrines such as the deity of Christ and the triune nature of God, there is no commonality to be found in respects to our doctrines of soteriology and church authority. I have to think the former most certainly defines the boundaries (while the latter factors in considerably as well).

    Who saves us? That is a very big question and all three traditions have very diverse answers.

    Would it be incorrect to say that the Protestant tradition holds strong to God, and God alone being responsible for our salvation? While the RCC and EO traditions seem to have the church (as well as the individual) playing an integral role in the salvation process? If I am correct in my understanding of this, then I think that most certainly provides legitimate reason for division and it most certainly defines the boundaries between heaven and hell.

    I think that this hits at the very heart of the Gospel. If we allow for any institution, or tradition, or individual to take credit for the meritorious grounds for salvation then we are compromising the biblical understanding of how we are justified. What we see in Scripture, and what the Reformers held to and often died for, is a Gospel of faith alone in Christ alone by grace alone. This is a Gospel that is antithetical to that held to by the RCC and the EO, yet it is very much rooted in Scripture.

    As a result I think if anything we as Protestant evangelicals should be compelled to proclaim the Gospel to those in the RCC and EO. I don’t mean for this to sound as if I think every person in these churches are in need of the one true Gospel, as it is more than likely that some people belonging to these traditions have heard the true Gospel, and have genuinely trusted Christ alone for their salvation. However, knowing what both these traditions hold to corporately, we should feel a deep sorrow and an urgency to proclaim the Gospel to them.

    If we are seeing within in these traditions a paradigm shift towards the true Gospel then praise the Lord for this. However, until we see them embrace what is in Scripture and what Protestants have been saying for 500 years or so, we should remain diligent in our task of contending for the faith handed down. That is our duty as believers in Christ. We can not compromise on the Gospel as the church itself is built upon it.

14. stevemoore on 04 Jul 2007 at 2:33 pm #

    Here’s a genuine question, not the tossing of a stone…

    In a conversation with a committed Catholic I know, they said that though Christ died for our sins and rose again their only hope for salvation was through submission and obedience to the church.

    I didnt feel quite as comfortable embracing their articulation – thoughts? Was I being too condemning? It’s hard to see when you’re “inside” the conversation.

15. Carrie Hunter on 04 Jul 2007 at 2:55 pm #

    stevemoore -

    I would not be comfortable embracing that either.

    This touches on what I was speaking of in my reply above.

    I feel strongly that this belief is antithetical to the Gospel.

    Again, if the institution as a whole is moving in a different direction (toward the true Gospel) then praise the Lord!

    Until then, with all gentleness and meekness, we need to address these things truthfully and boldly..

    Blessings,

    Carrie

16. Dan Wallace on 04 Jul 2007 at 3:17 pm #

    Carrie, if you’re right, then doesn’t that mean that we should preach the gospel to Lutherans as well–even those in the Missouri Synod? And what does this attitude say about Protestant-Orthodox relations? In the 16th century, German Protestants initiated contact with the eastern Orthodox and affirmed that Orthodoxy had upheld apostolic tradition. As for the Reformers who died for their faith, I think this is an important point that must not be made light of. At the same time, the Reformers are not the only ones to die for their faith. The Orthodox died by the thousands when the Catholic Crusade of 1205 sacked Constantinople, and both western and eastern Christians before the Reformation suffered enormous persecution from outsiders. Persecution is not the litmus test of truth.

    Again, I wish to plead with all the readers of this blog to find out about real Orthodox and real Catholics. I can agree with you all that many, probably most, Catholics are not saved; but I have to wonder whether most evangelicals in America are saved.

    Ironically, one of the tenets of the Reformation is a strong belief in God’s sovereignty. But today, the shape of that belief is often to deny that God saved anybody for the first 1500 years of the church’s existence. I suspect that we have overstated our case.

17. C Michael Patton on 04 Jul 2007 at 6:23 pm #

    Great post Dan.

    Once again, I think that the issue comes back to what is the sine qua non of the Gospel. Does the essence of the Gospel include a theologically precise method of articulation of the Gospel in terms of salvation by faith alone? In other words, does one have to believe in the doctrine of faith alone to be saved by faith alone. I would suggest not, otherwise we have big problems historically and will end up resembling Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses more than the historic Christian faith. That is dangerous ground.

    I would further suggest that the essence of the Gospel is focused around the person and work of Christ. Who is He? (God the Son, the second person of the Trinity) What did He do? (Died on the cross and rose from the grace) Why do we need Him? (we are helpless sinners).

    Since I believe that Catholics and Evangelicals can answer this the same way, then the rhetoric and presentation of our faith needs to be reconstructed internally and publicly.

    This does not mean that I think we should hold hand and sing Kumbaya. Neither does it mean that we turn a blind eye to some important issues that still divide us. What it does mean is that we can recognize each other as having a contribution to make to the Church. As well, we don’t necessarily have to damn each other to hell every chance we get.

    To have this attitude would certainly take some change in thinking on both sides.

    Thanks Dan

18. Rien on 04 Jul 2007 at 6:28 pm #

    Now this is pretty much what a Muslim missionary at my door asked a while ago:

    If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?

    Of course he put it as if the parayer of Jesus that “they be one” was not efficacious then how can jesus be God?

    That bothered me for a long while and I searched and read and releatively recently left Christianity because of the huge divisions, the totally different interpreatiton by Bible- believing Christians of all ving Christians of all types.

    This question is more damning than you think.

    Its why the “showdown” in the next century seems to be emerging as one between the secular West and Islam. With Chritianity hardly a factor.

19. Dan Wallace on 04 Jul 2007 at 6:30 pm #

    Well put, Michael–except of course for the customary spelling errors! (:-)

20. Rien on 04 Jul 2007 at 6:36 pm #

    This says it all:

    If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do? What is the value of such distinctions? What purpose do they serve?

    As a Muslim missionary to my door a while back said, if the prayr of Jesus that “they be one” is not efficacious then how can you acept his Divinity?

    Tht question troubled me and I read and re-read evangelical, Orthodox and catholic postions and theologians.

    I came to to conclusion that the divisions in Christianity – as in there should be you boundary as you suggest there should be – made my heritage and upbringing as a Christian suspect.

    I am no longer Christian and I think your point speaks not to the solution but to the problem.

    The next century will be a showdown between the secular West and Islam. Christianity will, IMO, be little more than a bystander. History, IMO again, is passing it by.

21. C Michael Patton on 04 Jul 2007 at 7:09 pm #

    Posted on behalf of jybnnt:

    This comment is meant for the previous post by Dr. Wallace. I tried to post it there, but the blog wouldn’t have it.

    Dr. Wallace,

    (Wallace’s statements in quotes)

    “You implied that Catholics sponsor false teaching on the fundamentals of the faith.”

    I did not intend to imply this at all. What I said explicitly was:

    Traditional (Tridentine) Roman Catholic theology affirms that salvation is by grace alone, but it is clearly a semi-pelagian/cooperationist system and, therefore, not really an affirmation of grace alone. Also, Roman Catholicism affirms that salvation is by faith, but it denies that justification is by faith alone. Is the gospel still the gospel if justification is by grace plus anything I do?

    I am criticizing traditional Roman Catholic Theology, the theology with which the great reformers disagreed giving birth to Protestantism and subsequently Evangelicalism.

    I understand that many Protestants use Vatican II to come to a new “softened” understanding of Roman Catholicism. In my experience the way this is achieved is by pointing to those Vatican II statements that contradict traditional Roman teachings (i.e. Trent). But as a matter of principle I will not argue against any system that is happy to embrace contradictions. If a system is willingly contradictory, then I have no argument against it other than that it is contradictory. What possible reason or logic could I give to debunk any irrationality?

    “If Catholics support false teaching regarding such matters, then those who consciously do so cannot be saved (according to your argument).”

    This only holds if I believe that salvation is dependent on a state of purity with regard to human consciousness. I believe that conscious human thinking, because of sin, can be deluded. Therefore, it is possible, though practically speaking unlikely, that a person who has trusted Christ might continue on under false teaching even while understanding the difference between the false teaching and the true teaching. That person would have no legitimate reason to be assured of salvation even though they really are saved. In other words, the lack of having a legitimate reason to be assured of salvation does not equal condemnation. There is a difference between living under the tyranny of a false-gospel (even if the feelings of tyranny are suppressed) and condemnation. Only God knows the heart.

    I would say with regard to Dr. Beckwith, the fact that he is a teacher only compounds matters. Teachers will be judged even more strictly and, therefore, bear an even heavier burden to get their theology right. I cannot pronounce judgment on the condition of Dr. Beckwith’s heart, but if he has truly rejected the gospel for Romanism, I do not believe he has any legitimate basis for being assured of his salvation. As you know, the issue of assurance was one of the main theological catalysts for the Reformation. Roman doctrine simply does not grant the possibility of true assurance.

    But regardless of this issue, you still have not addressed my main point of disagreement from my original comment.

    How can you say that the three main branches of Christianity are in agreement with respect to salvation by grace alone through faith?

    We may use the same phraseology, but Roman Catholicism and Protestantism fundamentally disagree on what salvation by grace alone through faith means. What good are the terms without the meaning?

    My example from Mormonism was simply meant to demonstrate that it is possible for those we would consider non-Christian to use that same phraseology. It was not meant to imply that we have just as much in common with Mormonism as Roman Catholicism. I only meant to demonstrate that what is important for theological unity is not that we use the same language but that we mean the same things by the language we use.

    I agree that we have more in common with Rome and Constantinople than we have with Salt Lake City. That is not the question. I also agree that we can learn much from Rome, Constantinople, and even Salt Lake City. God’s common grace extends to all societies. The questions are:

    Is the definition of our terms as important as the fact of them?

    Can theological unity be established on the basis of the words and phrases we use alone, or is common meaning also required?

    Are the Protestant understandings of grace alone and faith alone fundamental to a true understanding of the gospel?

22. jybnntt on 04 Jul 2007 at 7:19 pm #

    Thanks Michael!

    Also now that I’ve had a chance to read some of the other comments: (Dr. Wallace’s comments in quotes)

    “Carrie, if you’re right, then doesn’t that mean that we should preach the gospel to Lutherans as well–even those in the Missouri Synod?”

    I think that’s exactly what it means. Lutheranism took a significant turn from Luther toward Melanchthon very early on. Soteriologically speaking, that was a turn for the worst.

    “Ironically, one of the tenets of the Reformation is a strong belief in God’s sovereignty. But today, the shape of that belief is often to deny that God saved anybody for the first 1500 years of the church’s existence. I suspect that we have overstated our case.”

    I would never affirm such a thing. In fact I would say that Protestants have at least as much in common with the first 1500 years of the church as Roman Catholics. We concede historical continuity to the RC’s far too often.

    At the Diet of Worms, Luther was basically asked how he could teach contrary to 1500 years of church teaching? After sleeping on it, his reply was that there was no 1500 years of church teaching. The popes and councils had contradicted themselves left and right. How can anyone claim continuity with contradiction? That would be the height of absurdity.

23. Dan Wallace on 04 Jul 2007 at 7:42 pm #

    Thanks again for your comment and for the chance for further clarification. You said, “But regardless of this issue, you still have not addressed my main point of disagreement from my original comment. How can you say that the three main branches of Christianity are in agreement with respect to salvation by grace alone through faith?”

    My full statement was: “the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith.” Now, I followed that up with a comment that both Catholics and Orthodox certainly affirm in a quite different sense from Mormons the bodily resurrection and deity of Christ. Hence, it is not fair to claim that only Protestants have a grasp on the essentials. I take it that the bodily resurrection of the theanthropic person is an essential, without which none of us would be saved.

    As for salvation by grace through faith, both Catholics and Orthodox believe this, too. Do they mean the same thing as Protestants do? I suppose that depends on which Protestants we are talking about. Some Reformed Protestants call faith a work, so that even this must be a gift from God. Others say that it is not a work. Which view is correct? RCs and EOs would agree with the latter definition, as would most non-Calvinist (and many Calvinist!) evangelicals. The Augsburg Confession, as I’ve already pointed out, said that “baptism is necessary to salvation.” Not all Protestants believe this; in fact, many would say that this is adding a work of man to the finished work of Christ. Does this then condemn Luther, Melanchthon, and a host of Reformers to hell? Or what about repentance? Some say that unless we repent of our sins we cannot be saved, while others call that adding something to faith. In other words, it is true that Catholics and Protestants will not define grace and faith exactly alike, but it is also true that intra-Protestant groups disagree on some of the fundamental definitions of some of the fundamental truths of the Christian faith. It is always possible for us to retreat and claim that we have got a hold of the truth with a capital T and that everyone else is wrong. But I rather doubt that that is the best approach. And it certainly betrays a certain amount of arrogance, a trait that is hardly a Christian virtue.

    One of the problems I have with evangelicalism is its preoccupation with faith, often to the neglect of the OBJECT of that faith. This is where we can learn a vast amount from RCs and EOs. And if there is a variety of possibilities as to what faith means, but there is some unanimity as to what the object of that faith is, then perhaps we can say that RCs and EOs are closer to evangelicals than they are to LDS. And perhaps, just perhaps, some of them really do know the Lord–just like some evangelicals really do know the Lord.

    I should add that my doctor friend on the airplane back from Greece was a Regent College graduate. He had been a Protestant for awhile, but then became a Catholic. His reason? Protestants have a shallow liturgy. But when we talked about the essence of salvation, he was the one to add that we are saved by God’s grace alone and by faith in the risen Son of God. In fact, he went so far as to say that the ONLY major difference between Catholics and Protestants is their view of the Eucharist. I’m not sure I would agree with that assessment, and I suspect that this man is 51% Catholic. But again–at the risk of repeating myself too many times–is it not possible for someone to embrace less than all the tenets of their theological tradition and yet be considered a good Catholic or a good Protestant? Is this not true for Protestants alone? I have met too many Catholics and Orthodox who are deeply committed to Christ, who know that it is only God’s grace that has ever brought them salvation, whose humility and faith puts mine to shame, to think that they are not saved. Twenty years ago I could not have written this blog. But that’s because I didn’t really know any Catholics or Orthodox. So, again, my challenge to all of you is to tear down the walls and get to know them. You just might be surprised.

24. Church Militant on 04 Jul 2007 at 8:56 pm #

    I read the whole post and printed it out and jotted down the following comments.[QUOTE]To some Catholics, once they hear that a person is an evangelical, they have the same posture.[/QUOTE]True. However, the official and authoritative Catholic position is stated in CCC #[URL="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#836"] 836-838[/URL] and [URL="http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#846"]846-848[/URL]
    [QUOTE]Yet, the three major branches of Christendom all embrace the truths that Jesus Christ is fully God, that he died for our sins, that he was raised from the dead, and that we are saved by God’s grace alone through faith. There’s so much right with other groups that it’s impossible to claim that they’re all wrong![/QUOTE]Agreed! And I think that is what the Church is saying in the Catechism.[QUOTE]But I also believe that it is flawed and that we can learn from Catholics and Orthodox.[/QUOTE]A refreshing statement…[QUOTE]And just as [B]it is possible[/B] for someone to be saved and be an evangelical, I think [B]it’s possible[/B] for someone to be saved and be a Catholic or eastern Orthodox.[/QUOTE]“Possible”. This is important because it is a rash generalization to assert that [U][I][B]all[/B][/I][/U] of [B][I][U]any[/U][/I][/B] group is saved.

    A) The issue becomes one of [U]willingness to accept[/U] another’s profession of faith. Since none of us can know the heart of another, how can one validly reject the profession of faith of someone who says they assent to the profession statements that you have outlined?

    B) The issue becomes one of individual specific points of belief that [I][B][U]define[/U][/B][/I] “being saved”.

    In other words, it becomes that individual’s response to to the question, [COLOR="Black"]“Men, what must I do to be saved?”[/COLOR] (Acts 16:30). Individuals accept or reject [U]based upon their respective criteria[/U]. :shrug: [QUOTE]This, of course, raises a significant issue: If the theological distinctions between Catholics, Orthodox, and evangelicals don’t define the boundaries of heaven and hell, then what do they do?[/QUOTE]Define the boundaries of perceived truth.[QUOTE] What is the value of such distinctions?[/QUOTE]Much. In that they offer us a premise of possible truth that can and should be honestly researched and examined in an ongoing effort to ascertain the fullness of truth.[QUOTE]What purpose do they serve?[/QUOTE]Many. Among them, to give us a valid reference point (hopefully- providing one is unflinchingly honest.) for (at least) beginning a dialog.
    [LIST]
    [*]Definitions of terms used in such dialog.
    [*]A path to greater knowledge as one actually examines sources and determines their veracity or lack thereof.
    [*]Ultimately they (should) lead one to deeper and more sure faith.
    [/LIST]

    I hope these are helpful.

25. jybnntt on 04 Jul 2007 at 10:32 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    I thank you for continuing this conversation with very insightful comments. I know you must be busy. I apologize if I have come across as arrogant at any point. It is difficult when writing like this to express manorisms. Sometimes I reread comments and think, now I didn’t mean for that to sound as harsh as it reads. I respect you and your work very much. Without your Greek Syntax I would be lost when I go to exegete NT passages! Thanks for all your hard work. Please know that my disagreement with you here has been motivated by a sincere desire for theological precision with all due respect for you.

    “As for salvation by grace through faith, both Catholics and Orthodox believe this, too. Do they mean the same thing as Protestants do? I suppose that depends on which Protestants we are talking about.”

    Quite right, neither Protestantism nor Roman Catholicism is monolithic. With respect to soteriology, I would say the vast majority of Protestants are essentially Roman Catholic. In other words, there are many semi-pelagian Protestant traditions. The only difference would be that instead of affirming the seven sacraments of Roman Catholicism as the only means of saving grace, they have made faith a sacrament. On that score they have abandoned one of the central features of the Reformation. This is why the Westminster Confession is careful to describe saving faith thus: “the principal acts of saving faith are accepting, receiving, and resting upon Christ alone for justification, sanctification, and eternal life, by virtue of the covenant of grace.” Saving faith is not faith in saving faith, it is faith in Christ alone, Solus Christus.

    In these comments I have been thinking of Protestant soteriology in terms of the Reformed tradition as confessed in the Second Helvetic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, Westminster Standards, Second London Baptist Confession, and, more recently, the Cambridge Declaration. The soteriology of those confessions, which was the soteriology of Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin can by no means be squared with Tridentine Roman Catholic soteriology.

    Concerning Luther’s (not Lutheranism’s) understanding of salvation, I think we must remember the way Luther understood baptism when we read the Augsburg Confession. Luther did not understand baptism as separate from justifying faith so that it might be added on as a work. In Luther’s Small Catechism Section 1 on “The Sacrament of Holy Baptism” he writes: “What benefits does Baptism give? It works forgiveness of sins, rescues from death and the devil, and gives eternal salvation to all who believe this [referring to the gospel], as the words and promises of God declare.”

    I by no means advocate retreating into isolationism in order to guard the “truth.” Pastor-teachers should certainly be conversant with Roman Catholicism and Eastern orthodoxy. But I think we do need to recognize that there are some fundamental soteriological differences between the three major branches. Reformed protestants who hold to sola gratia, sola fide, and solus Christus as defined by the Cambridge declaration simply cannot claim theological unity in that respect. I must assume by your post that you are not coming from that perspective.

    And again, I absolutely agree that Protestants should not go out of there way to avoid having Roman Catholic friends. I have a grandfather-in-law who attends a Baptist church but grew up Roman Catholic. He still believes he is part of the Roman Catholic church and still supports it financially. We have some very good discussions. I love him very much, and best I can tell he loves the Lord.

    But sentiment cannot replace conscience when it comes to theological truth. I still believe traditional Roman Catholicism, officially speaking, confesses and teaches a false gospel.

    I’m sure there are many Roman Catholics and for that matter many Mormons or atheists who, to my shame, far excel me in the expression of Christian virtue. The Lord grants some people more virtuous expression by his common grace than he grants to those who have received both common and salvific grace.

26. Dan Wallace on 04 Jul 2007 at 10:53 pm #

    These are very helpful clarifications, jybnntt. I deeply appreciate your humility and attitude. I would still take issue with you that Catholicism teaches a false gospel. I think that language is too strong since so much of what they teach is true. Perhaps you might want to alter your language to a ‘partial gospel’? After all, I would say that Mormons teach a false gospel because they deny all the essentials of the faith. I would also add that our Protestant tradition, which matured during the Enlightenment, tends to see truth only in propositional terms rather than in personal terms. Karl Barth attempted a corrective to this, but most evangelicals don’t care much for what he had to say. I think the way you are defining the gospel may be a bit too rigid because of its emphasis on the propositional. When it comes down to it, the truths we must hold to be saved, as Michael noted, are all centered on Christ: who he is, what he accomplished, why we need him. And whether a person can articulate that he is saved by faith alone, if he depends on Christ alone for his salvation, it is difficult to say that he is not one of the elect. I have known several Orthodox priests (I am more acquainted with the Orthodox than I am with Catholics, but this is because I spend so much time in Orthodox monasteries photographing the treasures of the church that they have been entrusted with) who are humble, godly men, fully dependent on Christ for their salvation. To them, their personal relationship with Christ is far more important than propositional statements about what saving faith is. I do believe that justification by faith alone is a great clarification on the gospel, and one that I am grateful that Paul, Augustine, and Luther boldly proclaimed. But whether one has to consciously embrace this to be saved is another matter. I hope to write more on this issue later, showing some parallels between non-Pauline New Testament writers and non-Protestant Christian writers of later centuries. For now, let me just say that I’m glad for the exchanges that this blog stirred up, and grateful for the stimulus that you and others have provided.

    I pray that Jesus Christ is glorified by our discussion and the attitude of our hearts. And I pray that all of us under the umbrella of Christendom can find what we have in common as we grow in grace.

27. mjfreshoil on 05 Jul 2007 at 8:51 am #

    Dr Wallace,

    This is one of the most intriguing discussions I have seen on “Parchment and Pen”. It is wonderful to read the opinions of people who have clearly studied, and know how to communicate their ideas.

    I wanted to comment on something your doctor friend said. I tend to agree with him that Evangelicals do traditionally have a shallow liturgy. I think like the iconic expressions of the Orthodox church, the Catholic liturgy is full of symbols and rituals that make us look to Jesus. Even though in many cases the homily may not be what we would consider “life changing”, the expression of worship seems to make up for the lack of depth in the message. Most evagelicals fail in both areas. Our worship is lifeless, we sing songs that have seemingly have no relevence, and God forbid a song have some beat to it, because if we express ourselves by clapping or raising hands( which is clearly Biblical) then an usher, deacon, or elder will ask us politely to stop. And our sermons and classes lack the wisdom and Biblical depth for lives to truely be changed.

    It is changing in some churches, but many are still bound by traditions that were established so worship would not be taken to extremes. I think we as Evangelicals have the right idea when it comes to the essentials (even Catholic Evangelicals), but we miss God when it comes to our expression of worship, where we can learn alot from our Orthodox and Catholic brothers and sisters. No, I dont think we should become more liturgical in our worship. I do think however we should become as Biblical about our worship as we are about the essentials of our faith.

    I have been to many Penticostal-type services where the message was shallow, and maybe even a bit questionable in the area of doctrine (no, not heresy, just off a little), but because of the congregations expression and freedom in worship you were able to really “sense” Gods presense. I think its unfortunate, but many people are leaving evangelicalism because our churches are either shallow when it comes to scripture, or when it comes to worship. As leaders, teachers, musicians, pastors, etc…. Lord please teach us how to do both in a way that brings all glory and honor to you… Amen.

    Again, thanks for allowing me to comment.

    Miles

28. jybnntt on 05 Jul 2007 at 9:42 am #

    Dr. Wallace,

    I have to admit you’ve pegged me with regard to propositional truth. Ultimately, I don’t believe there is anything but propositional truth. In other words, while truth may be expressed in a myriad of ways, personal, historical, narrative, scientific, etc., all of it ultimately comes down to propositions. That doesn’t mean that the diversity of expression in communication is unimportant, it is key, but that diversity ultimately finds unity in propositions. Even with regard to the person of Christ in order to know and trust Christ we must know propositions about him, his person and his work (his work being where sola gratia and sola fide have central importance). I’m not ready to prescribe how much must be known in the miracle of conversion, but at least something propositional must be known. And certainly our personal relationships with our faithful King can be greatly enriched by understanding sola gratia and sola fide.

    I apreciate your counsel with regard to labelling Roman Catholic soteriology a partial gospel rather than a false gospel. However, I remain persuaded that any expression of semi-pelagianism, while not totally wrong, is essentially wrong and, therefore, false. I believe we all teach a partial gospel. No one has a comprehensive understanding of the wonders of redemption.

    Biblically, my reasoning for that understanding is that it seems that a kind of proto-semi-pelagianism (if I might speak anachronistically) is exactly what Paul labelled as false gospel or really no gospel at all in his letter to the Galatians.

    I wonder how you understand Paul in that regard?

    Respectfully,

    M. Jay Bennett

29. Carrie Hunter on 05 Jul 2007 at 11:00 am #

    Hello Dan,

    Thank you for your reply. I know you are very busy and this has to be time consuming. It is for me and I don’t imagine my schedule is anything compared to yours.

    I will try to be as succinct as possible in addressing the points you made. I hope I can do this and still address your points with the respect and attention they deserve.

    I will try a numbering system and hopefully that will make things go a bit quicker:

    1. Should Lutherans hear the true Gospel? My answer is if they are at present hearing a Gospel which denies Jesus Christ as the sole meritorious grounds for their salvation then …yes.

    2. In regards to an attitude. I can’t help but see the word attitude here in the pejorative. I hope personally I am not displaying any attitude that could be seen as less than a Christian one. I also don’t see the position I am taking as an attitude but rather an attempt to stand for a doctrine I feel strongly about. I hope in my doing so I am displaying the attitude of Christ.

    3. German Protestants and the EO – I don’t know that we can say that the German Protestants give them EO a green light on all of their practices. If so then we have to account for the Iconoclast movement. Did the German Reformers feel the EO held to sola fide? If they did, then why today do the EO not hold to that principle? And if the Reformers did not feel sola fide was genuinely an apostolic teaching then why the Reformation?

    4. I too would agree that persecution is not the litmus test for truth. Muslims are persecuted, or well Muslims die each day for what they believe is true but that in no way lends credence to the tenets of Islam. I only said the Reformers were killed for their views to drive home the fact that theological distinctions were being made at the time of the Reformation. If they were not, then why all the hubbub? Why were they killed for their view of justification?

    5. On what grounds are we saying that most Catholics or even evangelicals are not truly saved?

    6. My position on Christ being the sole meritorious grounds for our justification is not in anyway an attempt to undermine the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty. I don’t see this as some weird brand of Restorationism or Landmarkism that states NO ONE was saved from the time after the apostles until the 16th Century. I would not say that anymore than I would say that no one was saved until Nicaea articulated the Trinity or Chalcedon articulated Christ’s humanity and deity. There was a large gap from the time these things were revealed in Scripture until the time they were articulated. However when these biblical truths were articulated anyone denying them were labeled out side the body.

    I see the Reformers carrying on in the spirit of those men at the early church councils. They combated heresy that was equally as grievous as that of denying the nature of the God (the Trinity) and the nature of Christ (His deity and His humanity). To deny that Jesus Christ is the sole meritorious grounds of our justification is to deny Who He is and what He accomplished. I find it difficult to separate the Christology of the Gospel from the Soteriology of it. It seems history would tell us the Reformers did as well.

    Thank you again for this opportunity to discuss this.

    Blessings,

    Carrie

30. Carrie Hunter on 05 Jul 2007 at 11:01 am #

    Hello Michael,

    I would say the sine qua non of the Gospel is trusting in Christ alone for your salvation. I wouldn’t even say that one has to know Jesus is God when they come to a saving faith but I would say that they certainly would not deny that after they have trusted Him. Are you willing to say someone has to know Jesus is God at the moment they are justified? If so why? And what do we do with all the Christians before Nicaea?

    I would agree that the essence of the Gospel is focused around the person and work of Christ. He is God (which is why He alone is sufficient enough for the grounds of our justification), He died for our sins (which is why He alone is sufficient enough for the grounds of our justification), He rose from the grave(which is why He alone is sufficient enough for the grounds of our justification). Understanding Who He is and what He did are essential to salvation. Again, if someone doesn’t know Jesus is God yet trust Him for their salvation, are they saved? I would say yes. If someone after coming to trust Christ, or claiming to trust Christ, denies that Jesus is God, are they still truly saved? I would say no. So why are we making an exception for the vital doctrine that surrounds the very nature of what it is He did for us? The very purpose of the cross?

    I do not believe Catholics and Evangelicals answer the questions regarding Christ or humanity the same way. For example the Roman Catholic Church would not agree with you that we are helpless sinners. They would say that God enables us to work out our justification. The Lord helps those who help themselves more or less. He gives us the means by which we can work to be saved. Michael that is not the same answer to “What did Christ do for us”.

    The traditional evangelical answer to that question is “He did it all”.

    Thanks Michael.

    Blessings,

    Carrie

31. Carrie Hunter on 05 Jul 2007 at 11:04 am #

    I was going to address the issue of the propositional versus the personal in relation to truth but Mr. Bennett took care of that.

    Jay I completely agree with you on that.

    I would however like to point out the irony of Barth’s view on propositions. If propositions were of no significance why did he write thousands upon thousands of pages making propositional claims?

    I digress….
    

32. Carrie Hunter on 05 Jul 2007 at 11:34 am #

    One thing to add here…

    I know quite a few Roman Catholics (I have two in my family) I also know quite a few Roman Catholics that have rejected the teachings of Rome for what they see as the true Gospel.

    If we are basing truth on our experience, and the people we know who are seemingly good Christians, then that is a moving target.

    For every good Catholic that we may know, there is one that has left the RCC and is now evangelical. So in this case who is right?

    I don’t think we can answer that based on our experiences with either set of people. I think we should, as with all things, strive to see what Scripture has to say.

    Just as with history…

    We can gain much from the study of history, but at the end of the day that is not the bar by which all else is measured. Scripture is. Our goal is to be true to that. We aren’t always, (none of us – as none of us can be wholly objective when approaching Scripture) but the point is we are supposed to strive towards that.

33. mjfreshoil on 05 Jul 2007 at 1:07 pm #

    Carrie,

    Great comments, especially the part about history is not the bar by which everything is measured. I believe that both evangelicals and Roman Catholics use history as our guide much to frequently. History is wonderful. It can keep us from making mistakes, however history is frequently distorted because of cultural biases and other issues. I think likewise, when we look to the early church fathers as a guide to our understanding, it is helpful… but their understanding like ours could also have been distorted thru their experiences and cultural biases. I believe studying them, as well as history is great, but it can not replace the leading of the Holy Spirit…. something evangelicals seemed to have all but stopped recognizing because its too spooky I guess. We have become too afraid to say ” The Lord spoke to me…..” because of too many who have said He spoke and he didnt.

    Sometimes it would appear that the more right we become (sorry, no pun intended) the more wrong we really are… and we look to the wrong places to be corrected. 51% Protestant seems to be causing us to think seriously about not just faith, but the object of our faith from so many different prospectives. Carrie thank you; and Dr Wallace thank you for this topic.

    Miles

34. C Michael Patton on 05 Jul 2007 at 4:39 pm #

    Carrie, I did not really see anything that I disagree with concerning your post. I really think it is a matter of articulation and talking past each other. I believe that it is faith ALONE that saves. I just don’t know how much someone has to understand concerning this BEFORE they are saved in order to be so. Right theology follows, hopefully, but it, like all issues of sanctification, comes at various levels of understanding and articulation. People can also rebel against this, not trusting fully in Christ, but beginning to rely upon themselves. In fact, the essence of Christian growth is learning to rest more in Christ in reality, not simply doctrinal confession. In fact, doctrinal confession means little if you are not really trusting in Him completely. I myself have not yet trusted completely in Christ. Each day I struggle to know and believe in Him more. Only in glory will I truly trust in Him alone. But let us strive for a realization of sola fide today!

    EXCEPT (one thing I do take significant issue with-although I don’t think you meant it to come out this way): You said that you do not believe that belief in the deity of Christ is important . . . with this, I would say that you are on very dangerous ground. Who Christ is has been the hallmark of Christianity from the very beginning. I doubt you would say that someone could believe that Christ was simply a man, right? I understand that people don’t have to have a full understanding of Christ’s deity in relation to the rest of the Trinity, but I do believe that one must profess that Christ is God, even if that is a simple profession of Christ being “the Son on God” without having full understanding of exactly what that means.

    I believe that people are saved, like you, by faith alone. And, like you, I believe that this doctrine is of paramount importance. The entire book of Gal was written because of a misunderstanding of this doctrine.

    While I do believe that we can learn a lot from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I still believe that they could learn more from us. There are two reasons why I am not a Roman Catholic and the doctrine of sola fide is one of them. (The other is the issue of authority).

    Thanks for the comments.

35. DrOakley1689 on 05 Jul 2007 at 10:14 pm #

    Dan Wallace wrote:

    I would still take issue with you that Catholicism teaches a false gospel. I think that language is too strong since so much of what they teach is true. Perhaps you might want to alter your language to a ‘partial gospel’? After all, I would say that Mormons teach a false gospel because they deny all the essentials of the faith.

    At the end of my chapter analyzing Rome’s gospel in my 1996 Bethany House book, _The Roman Catholic Controversy_, I wrote these words:

    Peace with God is the present possession of the justified believer. This is not a peace that is transient; it is not a mere truce in a war that might again erupt at any time. This is a lasting peace, based upon the permanent cessation of hostilities. All that we could do could never bring about this condition of peace, even had we wanted to do so! But God has made peace, and each one who has faith in Christ Jesus and is declared just on that basis enjoys peace with his Maker, his Creator. What a tremendous blessing!

    But if the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation, then we can see the reason why Paul warned so strenuously against a false gospel. A false gospel, quite simply, brings no salvation. It might assuage feelings of guilt—to a degree. It might give a person a feeling of peace—for a moment. But a false gospel lacks the power of God unto salvation, and that is why we find the strong warnings in Scripture concerning the need to maintain the purity of the Gospel message itself.

    Does it matter?

    When it comes to the Gospel, yes, it surely does.

    On the most fundamental level the Gospel as presented by Rome differs substantively from that preached by the Apostles of Christ nearly two thousand years ago. If we did not go on to look at the Mass, at Purgatory, and at indulgences, we would still have more than enough in what we have seen thus far to proclaim the differences to be vital, important, and definitional. The Roman Catholic view of justification does not do what the biblical one does: it does not provide true peace. This alone would be enough. But there is much more. Rome adds to its view of a sacramentally mediated justification the concept of the Mass as a propitiatory (yet finite in value) sacrifice. To this is added the idea of Purgatory, wherein a person can undergo the “suffering of atonement.” And beyond this we have indulgences and the “treasury of merit.”

    The issues are many, the import great. (p. 160)

    I have no problems defining Rome’s gospel as false for the following reasons: 1) Rome’s gospel is definable, as she has provided dogmatic definitions of it. The Roman Catholic who denies dogmatic definitions is not, technically, a Roman Catholic, whether modern Rome exercises her historical tendency toward discipline or not. 2) The falsehood of a gospel is not a percentage issue. The Judaizers had a vast majority of the faith “right,” but, they were anathema all the same. If the Judaizers were condemned for a single addition to the gospel, surely Rome’s sacramental system far eclipses them.

    The Reformers struggled with all of these issues long ago, and there is a good reason why the great confessions of faith, such as the Westminster, or my own London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689, say what they say about Rome. Rome has not gotten better since then. She has, in fact, dogmatized even more falsehoods (Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, Bodily Assumption). Should you think Vatican II somehow “improved” things, please take the time to read this Post-Vatican II document:

    http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm

    Anyone who can read that work and say, “Oh, Rome’s views are just different at points,” needs to simply read it again!

    I’d love to send you the DVD of my debate with Peter Stravinskas on purgatory, Dan. Just let me know of your willingness to receive it, and any of the other nearly three dozen debates I have done with Rome’s apologists. I will close with this story:

    It caught my eye—a small booklet, tucked in the fold of a chair in the corner. I normally wouldn’t have seen it, but it was sticking out just enough to be seen. I picked it up. The blue-and-white cover bore the title, Devotions in Honor of Our Mother of Perpetual Help. I thumbed through the booklet, scanning a few of the prayers it contained. My eyes caught a line about “my eternal salvation,” so I backed up and started from the beginning:

    O Mother of Perpetual Help, thou art the dispenser of all the goods which God grants to us miserable sinners, and for this reason he has made thee so powerful, so rich, and so bountiful, that thou mayest help us in our misery. Thou art the advocate of the most wretched and abandoned sinners who have recourse to thee. Come then, to my help, dearest Mother, for I recommend myself to thee. In thy hands I place my eternal salvation and to thee do I entrust my soul. Count me among thy most devoted servants; take me under thy protection, and it is enough for me. For, if thou protect me, dear Mother, I fear nothing; not from my sins, because thou wilt obtain for me the pardon of them; nor from the devils, because thou are more powerful than all hell together; nor even from Jesus, my Judge himself, because by one prayer from thee he will be appeased. But one thing I fear, that in the hour of temptation I may neglect to call on thee and thus perish miserably. Obtain for me, then, the pardon of my sins, love for Jesus, final perseverance, and the grace always to have recourse to thee, O Mother of Perpetual Help.

    At first I could not believe what I had just read. So I ran back through the last few lines. Was this prayer really saying that the petitioner did not fear his or her sins, the devils, and Jesus?? That’s what it said. I shook my head in disbelief.
    A few years later I found myself in a radio studio in Boston, Massachusetts, doing a radio discussion with a former Protestant turned Roman Catholic named Gerry Matatics. The topic was Mary and the saints. Mr. Matatics and I were scheduled to do two public debates at Boston College over the course of the next week.i But today we were live on the air taking calls on the subject of prayers to Mary and the saints. As I packed for the trip I found the little blue and white booklet and decided to bring it along. Now I reached into my bag and brought it out. Surely quoting this prayer would bring a strong reaction from Mr. Matatics. Surely he’d deny that such a prayer is proper, and that the people who had written it were just going overboard in their piety. The talk show host involuntarily gasped as I read the final lines, and as I put down the booklet I looked across at my opponent, waiting for the expected reaction. The host, likewise, turned to Mr. Matatics. He was quiet for a moment, and then spoke. “Mr. White,” he began, “I can only hope that someday you, too, will pray that prayer.”

    James>>>

36. vangelicmonk on 06 Jul 2007 at 12:27 am #

    These are my two bits for all they are worth.

    Coming from a church that was “anti-Catholic” (while having a Catholic Mom who listens to Dr. Jams Kennedy at home) and also having experiences with people from various faiths I have thought long and hard about this issue and I will continue to think long and hard about this issue throughout my faith because it is a large issue to chew upon. It seems that some Christians are starting to seriously consider the issues and talk openly about some items that where once thought to be taboo.

    First, I wanted to touch upon is three issues: orthdoxy, ordo salutis and salvation. These issues are not exclusive of each other in that they overlap, but I think these three topics talked about together tended to obscure the discussion rather than bring to light serious issues. So the questions that these issues bring about are: what beliefs makes one orthodox? What is the steps upon which a person is given salvation? What must a person do to be saved? The first question is in the realm of what I like to call Orthodoxology (the study of orthodoxy) and the latter two are to do with Soteriology. Again there is overlap for sure, but the discussion tended to cris cross these two areas of study (in my view).

    Note: Again I think this discussion would be great at the forum because the quotes of people would be so much clearer. But that is just my side rant.

    Second, on the item of orthodoxy. I don’t think anyone made this claim, but orthodoxy is not intended to imply or set a standard for one’s salvation. As everyone has said God knows a person’s heart. Therefore, I think it prudent to not equate salvation with orthodoxy, but that elements of salvation are discussed within orthodoxy (which I think was discussed, but at times confusing).

    Essentially, orthodoxy allows one to critically examine what are the beliefs that are essential to the faith and what are distinctives. To me it seemed that many people were essentially saying that the Reformed view of Soteriology is an essential element and gauge that measures ones orthodoxy and anyone outside of that standard is essentially opposite of orthdoxy (which is heretical) or in the lest abberaent.

    This is troubling to me in that it basically calls my soteriological view point (which is similar to Giesler’s) as heretical or abberarent. You didn’t question my salvation, but you questioned my orthodoxy which although is a distinction, it still makes for greater difficulty in the question of fellowship, working together for His Kingdom, and tends to lead toward “unloving” hyperbole and in the worst vitriolic statements. I’ve been called pelegian, semi-pelegian, Arminian, etc. Again these words used in a lose manner becomes more hyperbolic than insigtful and usually do not lead to any type of fruitful discussion.

    Finally, to give my answer to Mr. Wallace’s basic question as to what purpose do the distinctives serve if (from my and Dan’s view) they do not separate heaven or hell:

    Dan I think it would have been better if you stated this question in the view of not so much a soteriological (Heaven or Hell) but an orthodoxical (did I just make up a new word?) view in that of the essentials that unite us in the body of Christ. I will answer it from this view (as it is less divisive). As the essentials define who we are as Christians, it is the distinctives that define who we are within Christianity. As long as our distinctives do not undermine the essentials (an issue still beind debated), then our distinctives serve to not only define us. Additionally, distinctives serve as an enzyme that helps us to better digesting the meat of doctrine that is not so easily broken down (easily seen). Distinctives and denominations help us in that we do not have to compromise on this digestion, but we should not use them to compromise our fellowship with each other and our witness to the World.

    This is my humble opinion on an issue that I’m still meditating upon as I pray and read the Word.

    -Ted.

37. Dan Wallace on 06 Jul 2007 at 12:45 am #

    Gee, I go do some work for a few hours and there’s almost a dozen more comments on my blog when I return! It’s hard for me to keep up with all this, but it’s obvious that the little essay touched a nerve. I suspect the exchange has revealed more than many would have hoped. Frankly, I fear that the evangelical church is heading toward a great schism. To put things in the most extreme (almost to the absurd) positions: there are those who believe that unless one is an evangelical then he can’t be saved; and there are those who think of Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Protestantism as simply different flavors of the same thing. I can’t possibly respond to all the comments made since my last comment (too many to deal with adequately), but I think that many readers are really not quite hearing what I’m saying. Michael captured well my view of things: “While I do believe that we can learn a lot from Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, I still believe that they could learn more from us.” That’s why I’m Protestant and not Catholic or Orthodox.

    I do wish to comment on a few items briefly however. Again, I continue to be misunderstood about a fundamental point (something I’ve underscored over and over again): Just as an evangelical is not defined by majority opinion about what evangelicals believe, a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe. Why is it that we are quick to quote some Wikipedia article or even a Catholic confessional statement and assume that all good Catholics must adhere to that, yet we don’t do the same thing for evangelicals? I’m quite sure that many American evangelicals would not be in favor of being painted with a Republican brush, or a dispensational brush, or even an inerrant brush. Yet many outside the evangelical tradition can point to literature that looks quite authoritative to the effect that all evangelicals believe these things. I’m asking that we play fair with both sides. “Dr. Oakley” (whom I presume is my friend, James White, since he mentioned the book he authored but never in one place gave his full name) said, “Should you think Vatican II somehow ‘improved’ things, please take the time to read this Post-Vatican II document: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm.” Fair enough. There are things in this encyclical that would be quite shocking to Protestants. However, again I must insist that we continue to not give Catholics the benefit of the doubt, but instead are quick to condemn. For example, another Catholic has commented on indulgences as follows:

    Most Catholics live and die blissfully unaware that the Church even offers indulgences anymore. (A Catholic friend to whom I mentioned I was writing this article said, “They went out with Vatican II, didn’t they?”) Practically no Catholic gives much thought to them. They languish in the Church’s attic of doctrinal knick-knacks.

    Catholic theology has an incorrigible knack for obscuring marvelous insights in confusing terminology. Thus, for instance, she speaks of “temporal punishment for sin” which sounds to Protestants as though Jesus didn’t do enough and you still have to endure extra torture so you’ll be fully “punished” in addition to the 80% or 90% of the punishment He took for you.
    In reality, “temporal punishment” is just Catholicese for what Protestants call “chastisement.” That is, it is pain unto life such as Scripture refers to when it tells us God punishes all those he loves as his children. (Hebrews 12:5-6). In short, temporal punishment is part of how God redeems our sinful actions and turns their consequences into occasions of sanctity rather than damnation. For as Paul says, “suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope. And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.” (Romans 5:3-5). This is the common sense reason why repentant murderers are forgiven, yet not freed from prison. The consequences of the sin remain, but, by grace, they are turned to glory.

    In the least, some Catholics believe what this author said and they see his comments as a helpful clarification on the pope’s encyclical. As a dispensationalist (with a small ‘d’), I could only wish that more evangelicals would read a bit more sympathetically before they condemn what I don’t believe! I think I owe Catholics the same courtesy. Again, as I said before, I think that many Catholics, probably most, are not saved, just as many evangelicals, probably most, are not saved. So, it’s easy to find someone who represents an unnuanced Catholic position that is heinous to Protestants. James effectively used this approach with the little blue prayer book illustration.

    Concerning Barth, I don’t think my statement about his views was understood entirely correctly, nor especially my statement of my own views. I believe that truth is both propositional AND personal. One bad habit we picked up from the Enlightenment was to believe that it’s possible to be a ‘neck-up’ Christian. That is, a Christian who has all the right beliefs but lives like the devil. Luther certainly did not tolerate such nonsense, but all too many evangelicals today do. (This is also a byproduct of thinking of soteriology only in forensic terms.) I see no comfort in scripture for that sort of individual. It is not belief THAT which saves us, but trust IN that does. Not facts alone, but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. (This is why I think many evangelicals are not true believers: they believe in propositions, but don’t trust in a person.) And that object of faith is far more important than the nature of the faith.

    As an illustration, consider the hemorrhaging woman in Matt 9.18-26. Here is a pericope within a pericope, unique in the Gospels. Jesus is coming to Jairus’s house to heal his daughter. On the way, a woman who had had a vaginal hemorrhage for the life of the little girl (12 years)—a disease that had kept her from worshiping with her family on the Sabbath—approaches Jesus stealthily, hoping that he might almost magically heal her if she just touches his clothes. But what she reaches for is his kraspedon or tassel—the four corners of an Israelite’s outer garments that represented his obedience to the law, as prescribed by Numbers 15.38-39. But her touching of his person would defile him, making him unclean just as she was unclean (Lev 15.19, 25). Obviously, she was more concerned about getting healed than she was about respecting Jesus’ obedience to the law. The woman was desperate; she had spent all her money on physicians, to no avail. This was a last ditch effort on her part to rid herself of this malady. There was nothing to lose—and yet she could not bring herself to openly request healing from Jesus. This contrasts markedly with Jairus’s faith: the interruption by the woman was long enough that Jairus’s daughter had now died (according to Matthew). But Jesus asked him to trust him. As the elected president of the synagogue, he could lose his livelihood if Jesus couldn’t come through. Yet, did Jairus know that he could raise the dead? Probably not. His faith was centered on the person of Jesus and that was enough. His own congregation laughed at Jesus when he said that the little girl was only sleeping. Jairus followed Jesus and put his allegiance and his standing in the community on the line. The faith of the woman and that of Jairus could hardly be more disparate. And yet, the object of their faith was the same. All three synoptic Gospels tell us that the woman was saved because of her faith. Mark also uses the word to describe Jairus’s request for his daughter (Mark 5.23: “Come, lay your hands on her so that she may be saved and live”). Now there are several different words that the Gospel writers could have used for healing; instead, they chose to use the word that also had soteriological implications. I take it that they are making a statement: Just as the woman and Jairus both put their faith in Jesus, resulting in physical salvation, so also each of us needs to put our faith in Jesus, resulting in eschatological salvation. But we could condemn the woman’s faith as inadequate, as selfish, as more focused on herself than on Jesus, as bordering on a belief in magic. Yet, the evangelists do not say this, nor even imply it. Instead, they speak loudly and clearly that the object of faith is more important than the nature of faith. Even faith that is mixed with alien elements may be enough to save someone if the object is right.

    I don’t want to make this illustration walk on all fours (after all, the evangelists use it as an illustration, not as the whole package), but it does tell me that a lot of our talk about right belief might not embrace the heart of the Savior.

    Finally, again this bears repeating: some seem to suggest that I see no differences between Rome and Wittenberg. That’s a pretty bad reading of what I’ve written! I see many and significant differences. However, do those differences necessarily amount to eternal destiny demarcations? The question I pose to those who would answer that question in the affirmative is simply, Is it not possible to have significant differences which affect the health of the church but do not necessarily affects its life? Does every difference have to weigh heaven and hell in the balance? Some have assumed that since I asked that question I saw no significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. Anyone who has taken my course on Romans at Dallas Seminary knows how incorrect that perception is! Surely our Lord and Savior is offended by the stench of our quick pronouncements of anathema on anyone who would disagree with us!

38. JoanieD on 06 Jul 2007 at 6:33 am #

    Dan Wallace said, “…a lot of our talk about right belief might not embrace the heart of the Savior.” Amen to that, Dan!

    And you are right that a lot of Catholics think indulgences were no longer a “thing” in Catholicism. I am Catholic and I didn’t think indulgences still existed. I remembered reading about them and that way back in history, the priests would allow people to give them money and the priests would then say prayers that would help the person’s loved ones get out of purgatory sooner! I thought it was ridiculous when I read that and was glad that I no longer heard of such a thing.

    I also don’t agree with the things that the Catholic church has taught about Mary. And yet, in my heart, I am probably still a Catholic perhaps because I was fortunate to grow up in a church and at a time when the priest taught about the love of Jesus for us all and that it is Jesus who saves us. I never thought that it was Mary who saved us, no matter what the church taught about Mary. But at least within the Catholic church there is SOME focus on a feminine dimension within Christianity which you often don’t see in the Protestant denominations.

    I never thought the exact way that the Catholic church teaches about the Eucharist. But I have endeavored to understand the Eucharist in a way that makes it be more than just any other coming together for a “meal.”

    So, in the end, some would probably say I am NOT a Catholic. Maybe I am more like the Episcopalians. I don’t really know. All I know is that I rely on Jesus…I was saved; I am being saved; I will be saved. I think of it like I was drowning in an ocean. Jesus plucked me out and put me safely in his boat. So, I was saved. Yet, I looked around and at times, I was scared by the rolling seas. But, there was Jesus still rowing the boat and saving me. Eventually, we will make it to the shore and I WILL be saved. And hey, his boat is big. The whole world can jump in if it chooses to. Come on in!

    Joanie D.

39. richards on 06 Jul 2007 at 6:55 am #

    Dan,

    It’s hard to pin down what is meant by Catholic or EO, since as has already been suggested in this discussion, “official catholicism” and “reality catholicism” are two different things. If we go by official catholicism, it seems much harder to be generous. I listened to the Mariology debate between White and Matakis, and shuddered the entire time. Vatican II retains the anathemas of Trent on Protestants while welcoming Muslims into the Church. Reality catholicism, on the other hand, could contain any number of beliefs. The same could be said about EO, and to a degree, Protestants.

    I think I’ve always looked at the demarcations between P/RCC/EO as different in kind from denominational separations rather than different in degree, and perhaps that is wrong. Maybe it’s better to see them as different in degree — albeit to a far greater extent than denominational lines. And just as there are some denominations that have beliefs that put themselves outside of saving faith (and therefore, not denominations), there are groups of Catholics and EO that have done the same thing.

    I’ve often said to my wife that while there is much on which I still choke when I read EO theology, I am amazed at the great reverence with which they worship. When I tell my wife I’d like to visit another church on Sunday, she responds, “Eastern Orthodox?” Your friend on the plane is 100% correct when he talks about shallow liturgy. I realize that not all Protestant worship services are the same, but name me a Baptist church (I am Baptist) that cares one iota about church history, tradition, or the teachings of Calvin/Wesley/Edwards/Chrysostom/Augustine/Aquinas? Name me a Baptist church that offers continuity with the past and present with the creeds? I pick on Baptists because of my familiarity with them, but much the same can be said for the majority of other Protestant worship services.

    Perhaps it would be easier if RCC and EO would just go ahead and allow denominations Then it would be easier for us Protestants to condemn the right ones (please see that as self-critical sarcasm!).

    Richard

40. jybnntt on 06 Jul 2007 at 12:27 pm #

    Again with regard to Luther’s understanding of baptism:

    “Luther held that faith even apart from the sacraments could suffice for salvation: ‘You can believe even though you are not baptized, for baptism is nothing more than an external sign which reminds us of the divine promise’” (Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 93).

    George also writes:

    “In the thousand years between Augustine and Luther, the main drift of medieval theology was devoted to watering down Augustine’s stringent predestinarianism. . . .

    . . . on the prior principle of sola gratia, Luther–and Zwingli and Calvin after him–stands foursquare with Augustine against the latter-day ‘Pelagians’ who exalt human free will at the expense of God’s free grace. In this respect, the mainline Protestant Reformation can be viewed as an ‘acute Augustinization of Christianity.’ Some historians have regarded Luther’s doctrine of predestination as an aberration from his major themes or, at best, as a ‘merely auxiliary thought.’ But Luther saw the matter differently. In responding to Erasmus’s attack on this doctrine, Luther praised the humanist for not bothering him with extraneous issues such as the papacy, purgatory, or indulgences. ‘You alone,’ he said, ‘have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue . . . You alone have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot’” (Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers, 74-75).

    This is the real issue. Is grace really grace? Then an Augustinian/Reformed view of predestination is required. But Rome has simply abandoned that doctrine.

41. jubilee on 06 Jul 2007 at 1:05 pm #

    Hi, we were talking about salvation essentials over at the catholic.com Apologetics Forum, and someone linked to this blog. I read it all, and as a Catholic I appreciate the overall mutually respecful tone. I just want to correct one thing: The full statement of what a Catholic MUST believe, in order to be a member in good standing with the Catholic Church, is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It provides all the teachings embedded in explanation/context/historical & biblical background. The doctrines have not been changed–they get unpacked further (development of doctrine); they get re-articualted with different emphases according to changes in culture as time goes by. In the current catechiswm, much is stated positively which had been stated negatively before. It may sound better, and this emphasis is “friendlier,” but nothing which was taught as true in the past is taken back. Another change is the anathemas–somebody above said that anathemas remained for the Protestants while Muslims were welcomed into the Church. This is NOT SO! Both the Protestant denominations and the Catholic Church have lifted their mutual anathemas. I don’t know the Protestant reasonings, but the Catholic view of those who turned their back on the only expression of Christianity; on those who fueled the worst schism in Christianity ever known–their responsibility, and their culpability is viewed differently to the responsiblity and culpability of their distant descendants who were born into a schismatic world. Also, we still hld as Trent taught–no salvation without baptism BUT are you aware that Catholics see more than one way to be baptized?
    Water we consider normative; but there is also baptism by desire (a huge topic) and by blood (martyrdom). The catechism is online free at the vatican website for anyone who wants to get it right from the horse’s mouth, no filtering… God bless my separated brethren (sorry for typos–can’t see part of my window!)

42. jubilee on 06 Jul 2007 at 2:13 pm #

    Hi! We were discussing salvation essentials over at Catholic.com and this blog
    was linked. I think the tone is overall pretty good (except for “James’s” mis-
    leading contribution), but as an informed Catholic may I adjust some of the
    take on Catholicism:

    1. Nothing ever definitively taught as true by the Catholic Church–no dogma–
    has ever been “taken back”. What might seem like a reversal is never such.
    It will be a legitimate development (or further “unpacking”) of that doctrine
    to meet development in the world’s needs/cultural shifts or to meet some new
    heresy; it will involve a changed emphasis. If anybody here thinks the Catholic
    Church has denied/reversed/abandoned anything she once definitively taught,
    then you are always welcome to float a specific assertion to that effect in the
    Apologetics Forum back where I come from, and the issue will be substantively
    engaged!

    2. The Cathechism of the Catholic Church (free online at the Vatican website)
    lays out every proposition which must be accepted either explicitly or implicitly
    by every Catholic–any Catholic who with full knowledge and full consent
    denies any such teaching is, to that extent, not in communion with the Church.

    3. The Cathechism has much explanation/context/biblical & historical
    background surrounding each teaching, to avoid misunderstanding. It makes
    the collection of doctrine a denser read, but also not such an easy target as a
    bald list, such as at Trent.

    4. Any priest who denies anything clearly taught in that book is denying
    something held by the Catholic Church and proposed to him for his belief. To
    whatever extent he denies and/or teaches denial, he is in a violation of his office,
    and to that extent he is being a bad priest. There is lots of room for Catholics
    to legitimately differ from each other on points of discipline, and things
    tangential to doctrine, and on propositions of faith still unsettled by the Church.
    But there is no room for disagreement on any doctrine considered settled.
    (Of course, there is always room for discussion on how better and deeper to
    understand any doctrine, as long as conclusions contradict nothing already
    definitively held by the Church.)

    5. Somebody is wrong on the anathemas. Both the Catholic and the Protestant
    worlds have dropped their mutual anathemas. Don’t know the Protestant
    reasoning–and an anathema is not a teaching, so it can be dropped–the
    Catholic Church sees the Reformation-generation Protestants as different from
    contemporary Protestants. Now don’t blow up, I’m just going to put it from
    the OTHER point of view for a tiny minute: Luther et al rejected the body they
    were born into, fueling the biggest schism ever. He et al broke Christian unity,
    the unity Our Lord prayed to the Father for. The bloodiest of wars are fought
    over unity–to suffer this deep wounding division in the Body was, for the
    Catholic Church, an infinitely horrendous event (I am leaving aside Her own
    responsibility in the event). But Protestants today are born into schism
    through no personal responsibility for the original division; their role is quite
    other, so the anathemas are inappropriate.
    And in a new world, with democracy replacing authority, a new mode of
    protecting the Deposit of Faith (Catholicese) is appropriate anyway.

    (6. All the above addresses what we call the Content of Faith. There is also,
    just as importantly, the Act of Faith–the movement of will whereby we embrace
    and love with our wills the truths we hold with our minds.)

    Hope this helps your good discussion…

43. C Michael Patton on 06 Jul 2007 at 2:19 pm #

    Thanks Jubilee. It does help. I think that most people are fighting a form of Catholicism that may or may not be “official” as both sides attempt to interpret the official documents of the Catholic church.

44. DrOakley1689 on 06 Jul 2007 at 2:43 pm #

    Jubillee wrote:

    I think the tone is overall pretty good (except for “James’s” mis-
    leading contribution), but as an informed Catholic may I adjust some of the take on Catholicism:

    Assuming this was in reference to me, could I ask for documentation of what is “misleading” in what I wrote? Thanks.

    James>>>

45. richards on 06 Jul 2007 at 3:06 pm #

    My apologies for not knowing that Protestants are no longer under Roman Catholic anathema, but that was, by far, the least important of the point being made. The RC church welcomes Muslims as believers.

    “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.” (from I. Lumen Gentium, Chapter II, paragraph 16)

    What’s more, it seems that the plan of salvation consists primarily of acknowledging the creator. To me, this is far more serious than a pronouncement of anathema. If someone wants to convince me that *Official Roman Catholicism* has a right view of justification, then they need to explain this Vatican II statement to me.

46. DrOakley1689 on 06 Jul 2007 at 3:34 pm #

    I would like to comment on the idea that official Roman Catholic documents are no more reliable for determining Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine than the personal opinions of individual Roman Catholics. We read:

    Just as an evangelical is not defined by majority opinion about what evangelicals believe, a Catholic is not defined by official pronouncements about what Catholics believe. Why is it that we are quick to quote some Wikipedia article or even a Catholic confessional statement and assume that all good Catholics must adhere to that, yet we don’t do the same thing for evangelicals? I’m quite sure that many American evangelicals would not be in favor of being painted with a Republican brush, or a dispensational brush, or even an inerrant brush. Yet many outside the evangelical tradition can point to literature that looks quite authoritative to the effect that all evangelicals believe these things. I’m asking that we play fair with both sides. “Dr. Oakley” (whom I presume is my friend, James White, since he mentioned the book he authored but never in one place gave his full name) said, “Should you think Vatican II somehow ‘improved’ things, please take the time to read this Post-Vatican II document: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul06/p6indulg.htm.” Fair enough. There are things in this encyclical that would be quite shocking to Protestants. However, again I must insist that we continue to not give Catholics the benefit of the doubt, but instead are quick to condemn.

    This is followed by a citation of an unknown Roman Catholic, one, I assume who is not even a bishop, let alone given authority to represent the Roman Curia in matters of faith and morals, in essence dismissing the concept of indulgences.

    Now, if I may point out, John Paul II, when the Catechism was released, wrote in his encyclical, Fidei Depositum:

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church’s faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church’s Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

    Now, as I noted, the Catechism affirms and teaches the doctrine of indulgences (Sections 1471 through 1498). The doctrine is directly connected to Rome’s understanding of merit, purgatory, the thesaurus meritorum, etc. I count no less than six citations of Indulgentiarum Doctrina (the Post Vatican II document I cited last evening here) in the CCC, showing that, of course, that document remains valid and representative of Rome’s teaching.

    Now, if the words of John Paul II as the bishop of Rome, along with the world-wide distribution of the CCC to millions of faithful Catholics in a wide variety of languages, is of no more authority than the opinion of my Catholic neighbor next door, I honestly do not believe anything can be accomplished in discussing the teachings of Roman Catholicism for, obviously, no one can define what those teachings are. In fact, may I suggest that it is not charitable to allow a historic religious movement that has taken such great pains to express its faith in written form to be represented not by its official statements, but by individual opinions of those who may not at all be aware of even what the leadership has written? Are we truly being charitable in allowing anyone, no matter what their credentials, to define the Roman Catholic faith?

    I am well aware, of course, of the issues presented by the modern embodiment of Roman Catholic theology, especially since Vatican II, in reference to maintaining some kind of consistency in Rome’s authority claims. As a whole, Rome’s leadership has adopted an inclusivistic, if not universalistic, stance. I have commented on this confusion elsewhere (http://aomin.org/YouTell.html). But unless we start with the official documents, and move from there, we will never, ever arrive at any meaningful conclusions.

    Finally, when it is said we are “quick to condemn,” I have to ask, condemn what or who? Catholicism is a system, Catholics are individuals. Indulgentiarum Doctrina is a document representing the current teaching of the leadership of that system. Are we to not condemn it when it so glaringly teaches falsehood concerning the grace of God? I simply ask if this is the apostolic example (1 John)? Surely we can tell the difference between an individual Catholic and the entire system of Catholicism. Can we not address the one without condemning the other? Surely so.

    I would imagine that of the nearly three dozen debates I have done since 1990 on the subject of Catholicism, I could find someone who calls themselves a Catholic who would have agreed with me on the debate topic, or, at least, who would have disagreed with the Catholic representative. But that only means that there are a lot of folks who call themselves Catholic who truly are not. When the media calls T.D. Jakes an evangelical, does that make him one? If he calls himself an evangelical, is he one, truly? Surely not. We must differentiate between personal opinions and the documented statements of the leadership of entire churches/movements as to their distinctive beliefs.

    James>>>
    http://www.aomin.org

47. Vance on 06 Jul 2007 at 6:13 pm #

    You know, one thing I have noticed skimming through this debate is that many are associating “protestantism” with “Calvinism” in a subtle way. Right now, I think the large majority of protestant follow some form of Arminian thinking (mainly due to the Pentecostal movement), and if presented with the strict Calvinist and Roman Catholic views of faith, grace, etc, would very likely say their views are closer to the Catholic on that point.

    Just a thought, and a reminder how much this is a SPECTRUM of belief, not a division of belief.

48. C Michael Patton on 06 Jul 2007 at 6:22 pm #

    Vance, interesting point – spectrum vs. division. I will have to think about that.

    But you do know that I believe that all non-calvies are damned to the hottest part of hell and have to watch the Left Behind movie series over and over again for all eternity. Besides, all of this lovey dovey stuff between Catholics and Protestants only applies to Calvinist Catholics such as Aquinas and Pascal .

    Man, I am full of good ones today.

49. Vance on 06 Jul 2007 at 7:13 pm #

    Oh, I think being forced to engage in any association with “Left Behind” products (you know they have a video game now!) would, indeed, be the dark depths of hell!

    Luckily, there are enough Arminians of the NT Wright variety (doesn’t the mere name make the ardent Calvinists grind their teeth?!), that are NOT of the “Left Behind” ilk, to make the label bearable.

    But this is merely another example of the spectrum concept. I may have soteriology agreements with a particular Arminian, but disagree entirely with them on eschatology, taking a position more akin to another who is a Calvinist. I may disagree entirely with NT Wright AND Catholics on strict Apostolic succession issues, but agree with them that the Calvinist overshoots on the predestination front.

    So, who am I “closer” to among the various groups, and how close are the groups to each other? Then you throw in the Emerging Church and all bets are off!

50. C Michael Patton on 06 Jul 2007 at 7:22 pm #

    lol . . . touché. But, then again, the Emerging Church does contribute to the dialog in a productive way as well, at the same time as having some issues.

    BTW: I am all over the video game.

51. JoanieD on 06 Jul 2007 at 9:36 pm #

    To jubilee: I went to http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm and poked around in there trying to find the Catechism but couldn’t find it. Can you possibly post a direct link to it?

    I remember as a very young girl that I loved learning the Catechism…Q: “Who made you?” A: “God made me.”
    Q: “Why did God make you?” A: “God made me to know him and to love him and to serve him on this earth.”

    Joanie D.

52. JoanieD on 06 Jul 2007 at 9:45 pm #

    http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
    I can find the Catholic Catechism there.

    http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/ccc.html
    And also there.

    I see the last thing on the prologue page from the link above says:

    “Above all – Charity
    25 To conclude this Prologue, it is fitting to recall this pastoral principle stated by the Roman Catechism:

    The whole concern of doctrine and its teaching must be directed to the love that never ends. Whether something is proposed for belief, for hope or for action, the love of our Lord must always be made accessible, so that anyone can see that all the works of perfect Christian virtue spring from love and have no other objective than to arrive at love.”

    I do like that.

    Joanie D.

53. esmenegron on 07 Jul 2007 at 6:20 am #

    I think the best expression of Christianity was given by Benedict XVI
    (aka Joseph Ratzinger) in his encyclical (a letter written by a Roman Pontiff that
    is considered doctrine (orthodox teaching) in the RC Church)
    God is Love (Deus Caritas Est):

    ¨Being Christian is not the result of an ethical choice or a lofty idea,
    but the encounter with an event, a person, which gives life a new horizon
    and a decisive direction.¨

    The entire text of the encyclical can be found at:
    http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20051225_deus-caritas-est_en.html

    Peace of Christ,
    Emerald

54. jybnntt on 07 Jul 2007 at 12:05 pm #

    One last thought:

    I was reading from Jonathan Edwards’s “Miscellanies” this morning and ran across an interesting idea. WARNING: the harshness of Edwards’s rhetoric may be troubling to our more modern “enlightened” sensibilities. I DO NOT mean to blatantly offend any individual Roman Catholic by quoting him here. I only mean to share a principle with respect to this discussion that has yet to be considered, and is actually fundamentally opposed to the proposal of common ground in both Dr. Wallace’s and C. Micheal Patton’s posts on this topic. Hopefully, that is enough disclaimer to calm the nerves of those who might be militant tolerationists.

    Edwards writes in “Miscellainies” No. hh (from the Yale Edition of Works):

    “Antichrist. It is alleged against the Church of Rome being Antichrist–say they, how can he be Antichrist that profess Christ? To that it may be answered, that he is a great deal the more Antichrist for that, for he is a [great] deal the worse for it; and the worse he is, surely the more anti-Christ, against Christ. Now certainly, those wickednesses that are professed, est[ablished] and commanded by that church are much the worse for their profession of Christ, for their professing the fundamental articles of the Christian faith. They ever deny Christ, because they profess him, than it is possible for any of those that do not profess Christ to be; more anti-Christ than it is possible for the heathenish, Jewish, or Mahmetan church to be.

    To illustrate it by example: thus the filthiest of a snake or toad is much more abominable for being joined with life, which is in itself excellent, than the same filthiness and shape would be in lifeless matter. Thus again, the hatefulness of the devil is much greater for its being united with an angelic nature. So there is as much difference [between] the Church of Rome and heathens, Jews, or Mahotmetans, as there is between a viper or some loathsome, poisonous, crawling monster, and lifeless filthy matter of the same shape.”

    AGAIN, if I did not express myself clearly enough in my initial caveat let me reiterate. I do not condone the harsh rhetoric employed by Edwards in his personal notebook (we must remember that that is exactly what it was before passing judgment on his rhetoric in this case) with respect to this conversation. And I don’t mean to quote him in order to bash those who may be my brothers or sisters in Christ while still holding membership in the Roman Catholic Church. I love my brothers and sisters as fellow members of the body of Christ, adopted children of the Father who has loved us and given his Spirit to us.

    I ONLY mean to point out that Edwards makes a salient point that is directly related to the discussion at hand. He is asking and answering the question: Does the fact that Roman Catholicism holds so much in common with Reformed Protestantism necessarily lead to the conclusion that it is in any better position or closer to the true religion than those religions with which we hold very little if anything in common? I think the way Edwards answers that question is quite insightful, and, to the best of my recollection has not been considered throughout this discussion.

55. Dan Wallace on 07 Jul 2007 at 4:51 pm #

    This blog-comment on Protestants and Catholics is taking on a life of its own! Glad to see the lively exchange. But I think, to some degree, we’re still talking past each other. I don’t have time to respond to every comment since I wrote last (over a dozen comments since!), largely because of my current ministry. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m unwilling to engage in dialogue, so let me be explicit about what this ministry is.

    As director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts (www.csntm.org), I am in charge of making sure that CSNTM can go to remote sites that have ancient biblical manuscripts and photograph them. This summer, for the first time, we sent out two teams. I mentioned earlier about the Patmos team, of which I was a part. Currently, there is another team of four people in another country (which shall remain nameless for security reasons), photographing manuscripts there. What I can tell you is this: that team was sent to photograph about a dozen New Testament manuscripts that had never before been photographed (even with microfilm). Many scholars have tried unsuccessfully for decades just to see these manuscripts, let alone photograph them. By God’s grace, CSNTM has been able to do both. But the team was surprised when they got to the site: not only were the dozen MSS there, but so were another two or three dozen MORE! These other documents are all Greek New Testament MSS and are unknown to western scholarship.

    The team is currently in the process of photographing them as well. However, to do so will take more time than the original trip allowed for (instead of 6000 pages to shoot, there are over 16,000!). So CSNTM is scrambling to raise the funds to send more workers to this site so that they can help finish the task by the end of the month.

    The importance of this find can hardly be overestimated. I believe this is the second largest cache of Greek New Testament manuscripts discovered in the last half century. Normally, one or two Greek NT MSS are discovered each year—that is, one or two in the entire world. To find at least two dozen in one site at one time is almost unheard of. The last time this occurred was in 1975 when 1200 MSS were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery on Mt. Sinai, 90 of which were New Testaments. I am knee deep in negotiations, last-minute fundraising, and correspondence with the team, while we are working to bring this great discovery to light. Please do pray for us as this month unfolds. And if you’re so inclined, we wouldn’t mind some financial help to make sure we can get the job done (just email me at csntm@runbox.com for details).

    So, you can understand why I can’t engage in dialogue over the important issue of Catholics vs. Protestants as much as I would like. The little blog I posted is actually shorter than many of the comments I’ve made since (especially this one!), but taking time to read and respond to the comments is taking more time than I really can allow right now. I need to wind this one down, though I do sincerely hope that others will continue the discussion. The most natural place to do that is to put comments on Michael Patton’s blog, “Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism” (http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/devblog/2007/07/06/roman-catholicism-and-evangelicalism-has-the-battle-ground-changed/#comments).

    Nevertheless, I would like to offer a couple of comments in passing. Again, I apologize for not having the time to respond to every comment or criticism. It is not for lack of interest! And, in reality, I’m spending much more time on this comment than I had originally planned.

    First, one comment said, “The falsehood of a gospel is not a percentage issue.” I would take strong objection to that. I don’t think that any one of us fully understands the gospel. And certainly the gospel is presented as quite different things by different groups. Pentecostals speak of the “full gospel.” Does this mean that anyone who teaches less than their view has no gospel at all? Calvinists speak of the gospel as requiring perseverance in the faith as evidence of genuine salvation. Other groups say that such a requirement is an addition to the gospel. People on both sides (within evangelicalism, by the way) have declared the other anathema. Some speak of making Christ one’s Lord in order to be saved; others object to that, calling it a roadblock to the pure gospel. Some say that baptism is necessary for salvation (Lutherans, Church of Christ). Others say that unless you believe in an inerrant Bible you can’t be saved; still others, a literal six-day creation. Yet all of these groups are under the umbrella of Protestantism. Some groups say that we are still under the law (Reformed, Presbyterians especially), while others say we are not (Lutherans, dispensationalists). And that viewpoint is often presented as part of the gospel.

    Are we to say that ALL of these groups (except our own, of course) are completely wrong because “the falsehood of a gospel is not a percentage issue”? To be sure, there are some Protestants that are quick to label ANY belief that deviates from their own as anathema. This is the kind of attitude that the Lord is surely not pleased with.

    The one truly remarkable thing about the Christian faith is that in spite of the massive disagreements over numerous issues for the past 2000 years, there is still a core credo that all branches (except, of course, for liberal PROTESTANTS–a very telling comment in itself about an endemic problem to Protestantism) embrace: Jesus Christ is the God-man; he died for our sins on the cross; God raised him bodily from the dead; and we are saved by God’s grace through faith. Surely that speaks volumes for what God has been doing right all these centuries. I’m enough of a Calvinist to think that the Holy Spirit has been able to persuade men and women sufficiently of the truth to get them saved, and that he did not wait till 1517 to begin this process.

    Second, it is true that I quoted from an anonymous source as an interpretation of the Catholic Catechism. The reason, frankly, is that I was concerned that if I revealed the author’s name a few readers would simply use some guilt-by-association or ad hominem argument to discredit his voice. It’s a sad commentary I can’t be completely forthright with fellow Protestants because I can’t trust them to handle the evidence fairly.

    The irony here is that even the names of the three branches of Christendom often unmask our hearts: “Catholic” implies universal agreement; “Orthodox” puts the accent on right belief; “Protestant” says that we are AGAINST something. Only Protestants are pugilistic in their very name. It’s a sad state of affairs that some of us continue with that stance when, as Mark Noll suggests, it may not be nearly as necessary as it was in the 16th century (see his important work, co-authored with Carolyn Nystrom, Is the Reformation Over?).

    So, allow me to continue to quote from anonymous sources as to what Catholics believe. Again, I am quoting from a Catholic source, not a Protestant source that is looking for chinks in the armor.

    “We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” In this statement that speaks of the scripture as “without error” I can understand why Frank Beckwith can call himself an evangelical (as defined by the Evangelical Theological Society doctrinal statement) AND a Catholic. Now, I am quite sure that not all Catholics embrace this view of scripture, but at least some do.

    “Everyone who follows Christ does so because the Father draws him and the Spirit moves him.” This almost sounds Calvinistic! Remarkably, at least some Catholics believe this.

    “Our justification comes from the grace of God.”

    “Believing in Jesus Christ and in the One who sent him for our salvation is necessary for obtaining that salvation…. Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man.” Again, this sounds almost Calvinistic in that the most Reformed members of the faith think of faith as a gift rather than as the act of receiving the gift of God’s grace.

    The devil is the one who “throws himself across God’s plan and his work of salvation accomplished in Christ.” Accomplished in Christ? This too puts a strong accent on God’s initiating work of salvation, and of his accomplishing it. Indeed, it almost sounds like limited atonement to me. But I suspect that that’s just sloppy language on the part of this document. I rather doubt that any informed Catholic holds to particular redemption, even the author of this essay.

    Third, whether the above quotations represent official Catholic dogma is not really the point. One response represented my view as follows: “I would like to comment on the idea that official Roman Catholic documents are no more reliable for determining Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine than the personal opinions of individual Roman Catholics.”

    That really does not accurately represent what I said. I never said that individual Catholic opinion is to be equated with “Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine.” Individual Catholic opinion represents individual Catholic opinion. My point is that many Catholics may well be saved. And the Catholic opinions I have quoted are all written by informed, educated Catholics. They are not uninformed opinions.

    James White correctly distinguishes between a system of belief and individuals who are under the umbrella of that system. He says that it is possible to condemn one while accepting the other. In general, I find this distinction very helpful and it is, in fact, what I’ve been saying all along. Systems don’t get saved; individuals do. But whether we should pronounce anathema over Catholicism as a system is where James and I differ. I do believe there are significant differences between Catholicism and Protestantism that affect the HEALTH of the church; but whether they necessarily affect its life is a different matter.

    Many readers continue to make me say that one is not a Catholic unless he holds to everything that Catholic dogma affirms. If that is the case, then Raymond Brown is no Catholic, nor is Joseph Fitzmyer or Frank Matera. None of these priests holds that the story of the woman caught in adultery is authentic, yet that is what Catholic dogma teaches. This is only one illustration, but it at least shows that well-known and influential Catholics can differ on official Catholic doctrine.

    I don’t mean to sound uncharitable here, but it seems to me that if one considers himself first to be an apologist then his entire mindset is bent toward defending the truth. To be sure, there have been great apologists throughout church history. But apologists are usually the last group to show sympathy toward a viewpoint that they disagree with. Christian scholars wear different hats: we are to be impartial investigators of the truth (thus, the image of a scientist comes to mind); we are to be defenders of the truth (the image of a lawyer comes to mind); but above all, we are to be embracers of the one who is truth himself, Jesus Christ.

    Over the years I have found that if I first wear the hat of a lawyer, I tend to misrepresent the opposing view or go after those who are extremists (and thus easy targets). If I only take the stance of an investigator, then it’s easy to never come to any conclusions. Both are needed, but WHERE we draw the line and say “This set of propositions is infallibly true” is what we are discussing here. I believe that too many evangelicals have incorporated way too much in their set of unswerving propositions. At bottom, if what we will not budge on is more than the scripture is clear about, if we listen to no one’s counsel but our own, then we have moved from a humble worship of Jesus Christ to an arrogant defense of propositions about him. And that is an unnecessary sacrifice of one’s heart for one’s head. If I’m not mistaken, Jesus asked us to love God with both.

56. jybnntt on 07 Jul 2007 at 5:50 pm #

    Dr. Wallace,

    What exciting news about the discovery of new Greek manuscripts! I will pray that our Father might cause CSNTM to be able to fulfill its ministry in photographing those.

    You mentioned that a core credo of all the major branches of Christianity is that Christ “died for our sins on the cross.” I don’t think that is quite true. You also said: “I rather doubt that any informed Catholic holds to particular redemption,”which I agree with. In order for anyone to understand Christ as dying for our sins they must believe in universal redemption, particular redemption, or simply be inconsistent. Granted, Roman Catholicism as well as most forms of Protestantism are simply inconsistent and confess what you have written. However, the truth of the matter is that they can really only understand that Christ “died for sin on the cross.” In other words, Christ died for the concept of sin but not for anyone’s sin in particular who might be identified with the personal pronoun “our.”

    You wrote:

    “James White correctly distinguishes between a system of belief and individuals who are under the umbrella of that system. He says that it is possible to condemn one while accepting the other. In general, I find this distinction very helpful and it is, in fact, what I’ve been saying all along.”

    I absolutely agree with this. This is a VERY important distinction to make.

    And thanks again for the reminder that Christian theologians must diaologue with the utmost humility and charity. Absolutely!

    I look forward to the articles I’m sure you will be writing up soon on the new NT manuscripts. Very exciting news indeed!

57. mghysell on 08 Jul 2007 at 1:47 am #

    I cannot tell you how much I appreciate your comments. In fact I am not at all surprised by the Catholic gentleman calling himself an “evangelical”–there is a growing
    trend in the United States of Catholics calling themselves such. I’m probably one of them (except I tend to shy away from labels). However, I have to admit my exasperation that none of the responses to your essay mentioned the CDF document “Dominus Iesus,” in which the Catholic Church
    reaffirmed its belief that Jesus Christ alone is the means of salvation. While many (liberal) Catholics accused the magisterium of being exclusivist, my latent Protestantism was very, very much excited when this document was released. But even for the Protestants who read
    Dominus Iesus, attention was generally shifted away from the thesis that Christ is the only Saviour and onto the assertion that one had to be a member of the Church to be saved. This, however, failed to bear in mind the revolutionary self-understanding of the Church issuing from the Second Vatican Council, in which the document Lumen gentium proclaimed that the Church of Christ “subsists” within the Catholic Church, i.e., that the “Catholic Church” as an institution and the “Body of Christ” are not absolutely coextensive. As you mentioned, Protestants believe (generally) that Protestantism is the best expression of Christianity.

    In the old days, Catholics spoke of “the True Church”–which has, thankfully, become passe. For us, we take our cue from Lumen gentium and say that the Church of Christ subsists within the Catholic Church, which is to say that the essentials of Christianity (that would be minus the Cardinals, tabernacle lamps, and rosaries) are to be found in the
    Catholic Church. In no way does it insist that where the Catholic Church is not, there isn’t the Church of Christ. This is precisely why the magisterium has, on numerous times, expressly forbidden the “rebaptism” of Protestants who come into the Church and why we do not speak of an
    ex-Protestant who becomes a Catholic to be a “convert.” This, I would suggest, is a powerful testimony of the Catholic Church’s recognition of the act of faith professed by evangelical Protestants.

    There is a wonderful book that is, to my mind, the best expression of the Catholic belief in Jesus as our only Saviour (although it is not a magisterial document per se). Written by the Dutch Dominican friar Fr Edward Schillebeeckx, it is called Christ, the Sacrament of the Encounter with God. In it, Fr Edward argues that in Christ is the “primordial sacrament of salvation” and by way of the Incarnation, the human race has found its only rendezvous with God. The Incarnation is what warrants an “organic” (rather than only “forensic”) means of salvation. One of his best lines runs thus: “The man Jesus, as the personal visible realization of the divine grace of redemption, is the
    sacrament, the primordial sacrament, because the man, the Son of God himself, is intended by the Father to be in his humanity the only way to the actuality of redemption” (1.2.1., par. 4).

    Thank you, Dr Wallace, for your timely essay. And thank you, fellow believers, for your thoughtful (and slightly less-than-thoughtful) replies!

    In Christ our God,
    mgh

58. BrittanyB on 08 Jul 2007 at 11:31 am #

    I just read through some of these comments, and I couldn’t
    agree with you more, Dr. Wallace. I know many committed Christians
    who are also Roman Catholic, and there is much that we
    can learn from them. I wonder how many of the bloggers
    have even read The Catechism of the Catholic Church.
    It’s incredibly rich, yet it’s presented in a simple,
    punchy, readable manner. I think that they would be
    amazed at the level of theological agreement that
    actually exists between evangelicals and the RCC,
    particularly regarding the essentials of the faith.
    After all, the Protestant Reformation got into high
    gear in 1517. But are Protestants really ready and
    willing to chunk everyone who came before Luther and
    proclaim that their theology was so faulty as to make
    them unregenerate?

    Every other week, we recite the Nicene
    Creed at my church. Whenever I speak it, there is
    always a sense of comfort in the fact that
    Protestants, Catholics, and the Orthodox stand united
    in their support of this ancient creed. I often wonder
    whether or not it pains many Protestants that the
    bride of Christ is broken. What statement or witness
    does that give to an unbelieving and dying world?
    Certainly there are differences between the branches
    of the faith, but are those differences greater than
    the God-man who unites us? How can the evangelical be
    so arrogant to presume that the Catholic cannot be
    Christian? How can the Catholic be so presumptuous to
    assert that the Protestant must have a low view of
    church/tradition/liturgy? Perhaps we should try
    talking to one another, engaging one another, praying
    for one another, and disturbing some of the myths that
    surround one another. Why are we so afraid to do so?

59. jybnntt on 08 Jul 2007 at 1:41 pm #

    mghysell,

    You wrote:

    “In no way does it insist that where the Catholic Church is not, there isn’t the Church of Christ.”

    That is true. But it also asserts that there is no where where any believer exists that the universal Catholic church does not exist. In other words it sources all means of salvation, with regard to the church, in the Catholic Church, which has “the fullness of the means of salvation.”

    Vatican II as quoted in the CCC (816) reads:

    “For it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the the means of salvation can be obtained.”

    There is a very irenic statement on unity in the next few sections in the CCC, which at least in theory (i.e. the call for unity) I applaud. But again the CCC (820) says:

    “This unity, we believe, subsists in the Catholic Church.”

    What is the message? Let’s meet in the middle? Not at all. The message is that those who separated from the Catholic Church are in error (see 817) and should return to her so that unity might be achieved.

    And what does the CCC 818 say with respect to the Protestant heritage? Let’s read it:

    “However, one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation].”

    Implication: Your predecessors, the men from whom your tradition is primarily sourced–Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and their followers during the Reformation–were guilty of the sin of separation. They have led you away from “the fullness of the means of salvation.” Therefore, you should recognize their sin, abandon their doctrine, and return to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church. We don’t hold you accountable for their sin, since you just had the unfortunate fate of being born into it.

    I know many in this conversation want to paint post Vatican II Roman Catholicism as a somehow softer, gentler form of Catholicism with respect to the Protestant Reformation. But that simply is not true.

60. jybnntt on 08 Jul 2007 at 1:48 pm #

    Brittany B,

    Your wrote:

    “But are Protestants really ready and
    willing to chunk everyone who came before Luther and
    proclaim that their theology was so faulty as to make
    them unregenerate?”

    I’ve never read any Reformed Protestant scholar who has been accepted by his peers as knowledgeable and responsible say such a thing. One scholar in particular who is also a primary source from the Reformation is John Calvin. Read Calvin. He consistently quotes teachers from the early church as well as the medieval Western Church. The best Reformed thinkers have always understood that Reformed Protestantism has just as much historical continuity with the past as Roman Catholicism.

61. BrittanyB on 08 Jul 2007 at 2:26 pm #

    Believe me when I say that I am well aware of Calvin’s appreciation of the Fathers. Luther also had a great respect for them (particularly Augustine), as did many of the Reformers. If I wrote poorly, forgive me. Here is my central point: Luther’s position on forensic justification was certainly not normative for the ancient/medieval church. If you want to say that a person cannot be considered Christian if he/she does not hold to Luther’s position on justification, then the Church has got problems … fifteen centuries of it, actually.

62. jybnntt on 08 Jul 2007 at 5:22 pm #

    BrittanyB,

    Thanks for attempting to clarify for me. The point you raised is very interesting and certainly pertinent to the discussion.

    But I think you have misunderstood an aspect of historical theological method. I like to call it progressive illumination in the church (aka, the development of doctrine). How that concept relates to your point is this:

    If a doctrine becomes officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma in one moment in history, that does not necessarily mean that all those who came before it can be held up and evaluated according to it.

    In other words,

    Trinitarianism was officially recognized and formulated at Nicae (325). Prior to that time there was no such worked-out understanding of trinity. The fundamentals of trinity were certainly there implicitly, but the clarified language and nuanced system had yet to be articulated like it was at Nicae and later at Constantinople (381). That does not mean that pre-Nicene teachers can be evaluated according to the more clarified expression. Nor does it mean that the later formulation, because it was later, is therefore unimportant with respect to evaluating those who come after it. Nicae is fundamental for us post-Nicene Christians. To take the logic you communicated to its end would be to deny the authority of all creeds and confessions. Some in the free-church tradition (is that an oxymoron?) have gone that direction, but I believe, along with both Dr. Wallace and C Michael Patton if I am not mistaken, that that is a bad way to go. In fact, personally, I think this is one of the main reasons behind this discussion.

    In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though we cannot say that Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential. Nor should we judge those who came before according to the more clarified expression.

    I hope that makes sense. Please feel free to ask for more clarification on my part if any of what I wrote doesn’t make sense to you.

    Thanks,

    Jay

63. jybnntt on 08 Jul 2007 at 5:28 pm #

    Sorry, the first sentence in the second-to-last paragraph above read:

    “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though we cannot say that Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.”

    It should have read with the bold part omitted:

    “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.”

64. C Michael Patton on 08 Jul 2007 at 8:48 pm #

    With regard to what I just said, I think Dan’s post: Is Compromise a Four Letter Word is worth a look.

65. Dan Wallace on 09 Jul 2007 at 1:43 am #

    Thank you all for this good discussion. I appreciate especially BrittanyB’s insights (from her comments I assume she is a Protestant) and mghysell’s (from his comments, he’s surely a Catholic). I even appreciated Jay’s comments, even though we do not see eye to eye (even though we are both Calvinists and Dallas Seminary graduates). I’m learning a lot from this discussion, especially about attitudes, perceptions, and priorities. If I may, I’d like to comment on a couple of things that Jay (jybnntt) said.

    First, you argued against my statement about core beliefs: “You mentioned that a core credo of all the major branches of Christianity is that Christ ‘died for our sins on the cross.’ I don’t think that is quite true.” I beg to differ. Roman Catholics explicitly believe that Christ died for our sins. This time I’ll quote from the Catholic Catechism: “By giving up his own Son for our sins, God manifests that his plan for us is one of benevolent love….” Now, whether Catholics are consistent on that matter may be where you may wish to take issue, but their “core credo” is that Christ died for our sins.

    Second, regarding your comments to BrittanyB about no knowledgeable and responsible Reformed Protestant scholar, accepted by his peers, has ever said that all those prior to Luther were destined for hell: You have a lot of qualifications about whose opinions on this matter are acceptable (I counted five!). The problem is that many of my Bible college professors certainly gave the impression that, apart from Augustine, virtually all those “Christians” from the second century through the fifteenth were damned. To be sure, they may not have been knowledgeable and responsible, Reformed, or accepted by their peers in such views. But they were Protestants in a position of some authority and influence. And this is precisely the attitude we are trying to change. Besides, the more qualifications you make of Protestant scholars who have the right to speak, the more it sounds like there is some unofficial magisterium that the rest of Protestants must bow to. And this brings us back to where our authority is.

    Third, again with respect to BrittanyB’s comments, you said: “If a doctrine becomes officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma in one moment in history, that does not necessarily mean that all those who came before it can be held up and evaluated according to it.” I think that’s a fine statement and one that I would heartily endorse. However, you went on to say “In the end, due to the concept of doctrinal development, we Protestants should not feel as though Luther’s sola fide, perceived this side of Luther, must therefore automatically be regarded as a non-essential.” There are two points that I’d like to wrestle with on this matter.

    First, as strongly as I embrace sola fide, this doctrine was never “officially recognized and formulated as an essential dogma” by universally accepted creeds or church councils.

    You packaged your words carefully not to mention such universal acceptance, but the problem is that there have been several local councils, synods, and creedal statements throughout church history that are now considered errant. But all branches of Christendom (except, of course, for liberal Protestants) now accept the major creeds of the early centuries precisely because they were universally accepted then. If we say that the Reformation’s solas are essential, on what basis are we to do so? It can’t be some sort of official teaching body because Protestants don’t have such a hierarchy (one of the problems I noted about Protestantism in my earlier post about what I’ve learned from the Orthodox). And it can’t be universal acceptance, since only Protestants hold to it.

    Your principle would put a terrible burden on Christians in the eleventh century: were they damned if they denied the filioque or if they accepted it? It could, in fact, be argued that the western church split off from the eastern over this controversy by unilaterally adding the filioque clause without first gaining universal acceptance. How was the average Christian to think about such matters if the leaders of the Church were split over them? The same thing applies to the Reformation in many respects: since the Reformation solas were not universally accepted, is it really fair to say that all in the church since 1517 must embrace them to be saved?

    If we say that it’s based on scripture, then we have another problem: Where, exactly, does it say this? I believe I can derive it from Paul’s writings and John’s (though not without some serious exegesis), but I’m far more hard-pressed to do so with the rest of the New Testament.

    I do think that Protestants have to own up to the fact that we essentially hold to a canon WITHIN the canon–viz., Paul’s letters as the clearest articulation of salvation. I, for one, am content to say just that: I hold to a canon within the canon (something for a later blog). But let’s be clear that if we see James as just as inspired as Paul’s letters, then even sola scriptura does not automatically demonstrate sola fide to be an essential creed. Catholics, too, have the right to interpret scripture. And even though they elevate tradition much higher than Protestants do, we need to give them credit for basing their views–in this matter at least–on scripture.

    Second, there is a difference between calling a doctrine an essential component of what saves a person and an essential conscious proposition that they must embrace to be saved. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. But whether someone has to believe that faith alone saves may be a different matter. In other words, is faith that which that God has ordained as the means by which we are saved or is it both the means AND the content of salvation?

66. brent vermillion on 09 Jul 2007 at 7:10 am #

    I think that the thinking in this article is open, creative and outside the box of cookie cutter evangelicalism. Having said that I will add a perspective that none of the other commentors on this page could possibly have — the perspective of an evangelical pastor living in a predominantly catholic nation. You see I pastor in Spain where everyone is supposedly Catholic and yet almost none of them have any understanding at all whatsoever about salvation by faith. It may be contained in some form or other in Catholic doctrine but it is not taught in Catholic churches in Spain and Europe. Furthermore, in Spain, France and Italy the Catholic Church leaders boldly proclaim that the Evangelical church is a cult. The Pope himself strongly implied this on his last visit to Brazil. The Catholic church is more ecumenical in North America, England and Germany because it suits their purposes. We should not forget that the Catholic church to different degrees has been persecuting evangelical/protestants since the beginning of the protestant reformation. Of the 45 million people in Spain most have lost interest in the church precisely because it has no life and it preaches no message of salvation by grace through faith.

67. jybnntt on 09 Jul 2007 at 10:37 am #

    Dr. Wallace,

    Thanks for continuing in this discussion and thanks for being willing to interact with my comments so extensively.

    On the issue of whether Roman Catholicism actually can believe that Christ died for our sins, I think you said what I said. It is certainly true that RC dogma includes the statement. My point was that, because RC dogma does not also affirm particular redemption, they are inconsistent on that point. They can really only understand that Christ died for a depersonalized consept of sin, which, I think, the idea of a treasury of merit aptly expresses.

    On the second point about Reformed Protestant scholars condemning all who came before the Reformation. Perhaps the times are a changin’. I cannot recall ever hearing from a DTS classroom such a thing. Nor can I ever recall reading such a thing. That’s why my initial qualification was that my comment was based on my own experience. I opened that comment with: “I’ve never read . . . ”

    On sola fide, I think we sometimes place undue weight upon the concept of universal acceptance. Certainly the lack of any significant acceptance should raise eyebrows, but technically speaking, has there ever really been universal acceptance when a creed has been formulated? The Arians could not sign off on Nicae. Nor could the Monophysites on Chalcedon.

    Also, even if we just require the acceptance of a significant majority, that would mean that no doctrine since the Great Schism (1054) could be considered essential Christian doctrine. I understand that there are many who say that, but I wonder if that is the best understanding of doctrinal development within the church.

    You asked:

    “If we say that the Reformation’s solas are essential, on what basis are we to do so?”

    I would say we could do so on the basis of the confessions within the Reformed tradition (i.e., those that express those doctrines).

    You also asked:

    “Your principle would put a terrible burden on Christians in the eleventh century: were they damned if they denied the filioque or if they accepted it?”

    Again, let me reiterate, throughout this discussion I have been very careful not pronounce any individual damned. As a matter of principle I do not believe I can know the human heart, not even my own, that well. My point is to evaluate the official dogma of Roman Catholicism with that of Reformed Protestantism with respect to soteriology.

    Furthermore, there can always be exceptions to the rule when it comes to creedal and confessional tradition. The history surrounding the filioque controversy is complex and quite different, I think, from a primarily theological problem that had arisen in the Church. Things are never quite as black and white as the assumption your question is based on. Nonetheless, while the Reformation was certainly as complex as any other especially significant time in history, I do believe it is apparent that the issue for the reformers was primarily theological.

    You asked:

    “since the Reformation solas were not universally accepted, is it really fair to say that all in the church since 1517 must embrace them to be saved?”

    Please let me reiterate again, I am not arguing that God can only save individuals in Reformed churches. I am arguing that Roman Catholic dogma is wrong at a fundamental soterilogical level. So much so that I would regard it as a false gospel.

    With regard to Scriptural support for Reformed soteriology, I think the whole tenor of Scripture points toward sola gratia, sola fide, and solas Christus. I think I remember a phenomenal exegete reminding me once of an exegetical fallcy called “the classic lexico-conceptual fallacy.” I understand you did not say that the actual words had to be present in order for the concept to be there, but I think that’s what we sometimes think. I agree with the analogy of faith hermeneutical principle, which you called canon within the canon. Scripture must be the primary interpreter of Scripture. However, I’m also aware that all interpretive process can be highly complex. It’s not as easy as we make it sound sometimes. I am very thankful for exegetes like yourself who are able to engage in that process at a scholarly level to help all of us underlings.

    You wrote:

    “But let’s be clear that if we see James as just as inspired as Paul’s letters, then even sola scriptura does not automatically demonstrate sola fide to be an essential creed.”

    In order for this point to hold, we must assume that James and Paul are contradicting one another with respect to sola fide. I do not think that is true (cf. my comment #61 at C Michael Patton’s post “Roman Catholicism and Evangelicalism: Has the Battle Ground Begun to Change?”).

    You wrote:

    “Catholics, too, have the right to interpret scripture. And even though they elevate tradition much higher than Protestants do, we need to give them credit for basing their views–in this matter at least–on scripture.”

    I’m not sure what you mean by “this matter,” but Roman Catholic soteriology on the whole is, I think, quite unscriptural.

    You also wrote:

    “Second, there is a difference between calling a doctrine an essential component of what saves a person and an essential conscious proposition that they must embrace to be saved. I believe that we are saved by faith alone. But whether someone has to believe that faith alone saves may be a different matter. In other words, is faith that which that God has ordained as the means by which we are saved or is it both the means AND the content of salvation?”

    I absolutely agree with you on this distinction. This is an INCREDIBLY important point. Thanks for making it so clearly.

    Faith is the means not the content of salvation. I do not have faith in my faith. I trust the finished work of Christ alone. However, I think that everyone who is saved implicitly or subconsciously understands that they are counted right before by faith in the finished work of Christ alone. I can’t remember who said, I think it was Packer, but whoever it was said: “We’re all Calvinists when we pray.” In other words, we all know that God is God and we are not when we pray to him.

    Respectfully,

    Jay

68. cgiraldo on 09 Jul 2007 at 11:07 am #

    This is an intriguing topic to me, because of the readings I did over the past holiday weekend. The readings were based on comic books which I purchased for my older son, but when he showed no interest, I decided to read them myself. The comics were based on the testimony of ex-Jesuits priest Alberto Rivera, which were very graphic and reveal a very dark side of the church, however, it did address various topics that I had questioned in the past or items that I had been confronted on my non-believers, when I first came to Lord and had no foundation. I grew up as a Catholic, but my only joy was when I did my communion at the age of 9, because I felt happy about going to church (I am 29 years old.) However, as time past, I always believed in Jesus, but that was about it. I came to know the Lord for the first time through my second wife, but had no foundation, but last November the Lord called me back after leaving him for several years. I thank the Lord for hearing my wife’s prayers, because God knows she couldn’t talk to me about God or I would blow it. I recall doing a paper for school a few years ago on the origins of Christmas, but everything I read up referred to Constantine and how the end of December was used by pagans to worship the Sun God and Christians were beginning to join the celebration. I changed my paper and wrote on Christmas in my country of birth, because the information startled me and confused my belief in Christ. Well years later, this topic came up in the Alberto Rivera comic, which provided some more detail on Baal worship. It showed me that the Christians who studied the bible were also persecuted by the Crusades, as well as many Jews. Today I have a strong relationship in the Lord and those stories, won’t impact that relationship, but I do have a burden to have a better understanding of theology. My father is a devout Roman Catholic, as it 98% of the people in Colombia and about two months I was sharing my faith with him. Some of the things he mentioned such as Peter being the founder of the Christian Church, the first missionary and the Rock of the church, were puzzling. So I pulled out my bible and explained to him that Paul was the first missionary and he was the one that was chosen by Christ to being the Gospel to the gentiles (us) and I showed him the maps in my bible. He then when on to say that Peter was the first Pope and that’s were this Apostolic Pillar comes from, as well as something regarding the Vatican stating that there is only room for 255 popes and they’re have been about 252 and when it reaches that number and the suppose blood of Peter that lays in Rome dries out that will be the end of the world or the Roman Catholic church will be over. I also now understand why my father prayed to picture of the John Paul II as I was growing up; I though he was just a man, but I guess he is suppose to represent Christ on Earth according to Catholics. That’s pretty scare, as we are all servants of he who created us and dwells in those who accepted him as Lord and Savior. Additionally there is a severe idol worship issue within the Roman Catholic religion and I use to think that there were Catholics who are true Christians, but I would think that the true believers that are Christians at some point will have to flee from that religion, because all though their relationship is with Christ, the fact that they preach other non-Christian values, worship idols and place Mary as the intercessor to Christ would have to bother there conscious knowing that those beliefs are not biblical. I pray that all who want to learn the truth, that goes for me as well, will dive into the Word and let the scriptures and the Holy Spirit reveal the truth.

69. BrittanyB on 09 Jul 2007 at 12:20 pm #

    Well, I certainly appreciate this lively discussion! Dr. Wallace, thanks so much for your insights. You delineate your arguments very, very well. I’ll try to do the same (although I have no doubt that I will certainly fall below your standard, sir)!

    Jay, thanks so much for the input. I understand your position, and you make some solid, valid points. As a good supralapsarian, Reformed Baptist, I too uphold the doctrine of justification by faith. (And I certainly love my creeds as well!) I am simply questioning whether or not an assent to forensic justification is necessary for salvation, both before and after Luther. It appears that you would say “no” to the former and “yes” to the latter. You skillfully use the Council of Nicea as a pristine example of the Church taking 325 years to codify her teachings and form a coherent, authoritative statement on the Trinity. You argue that certainly a measure of grace can and should be bestowed upon the pre-Nicene church when it comes to its articulation and understanding of the Trinity; in a post-Nicene age, though, such grace cannot and should not be conferred. I wholeheartedly agree with you.

    I do think that you’re overlooking a couple of things, however. Even though an authoritative statement did not come from the universal Church until 325, Trinitarian teaching was normative throughout the church until that point. You can see the formulation and progression of Trinitarian doctrine in Ignatius, Clement, Hermas, Justin, Tatian, Theophilus of Antioch, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, Origen, Hippolytus, and Tertullian (who probably coined the word “Trinitas”) As you well know, some of these men refuted early heresies regarding the nature of the Godhead (modalism is the preeminent example there). So, it’s not as if the concept of the Trinity just came to the fore with the rise of the Athanasius and the Arian heresy. Even prior to Nicea, then, a belief in the Trinity could be affirmed as something “that had always been taught” by the nascent Church. What you have in Nicea is an ecumenical statement by the universal church clearly defining what must be believed by the faithful. According to Eusebius, bishops from all over the world (including Phoenicia, Cilicia, Syria, Palestine, Libya, Pamphylia, Galatia, Cappadocia, Thrace, Macedonia, and Alexandria) came together to act in accord as one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. The universality of agreement cannot be overlooked at Nicea (or at Ephesus, Constantinople, or Chalcedon).

    The same, however, cannot be said of Luther’s position on justification. Unlike the Trinity, which has always been taught by the Church, the idea of forensic justification was certainly not normative within the early/medieval period. In 1500 years, no theologian, historian, or exegete came to understand Paul’s doctrine on justification in the same way that Luther did. That’s fully ¾ of the life and practice of church teaching running counter to the declarations of Luther and his fellow Reformers. While there may be plenty of statements, creeds, and councils which address justification, the universal Church has not met again to formulate a clear, authoritative statement on the issue. Various denominations have their own creeds on the matter, and certain groups have come together to reach some sort of consensus upon the issue. Ironically, Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue (see vol. VII) came up with this statement on justification. “Our entire hope of justification and salvation rests on Christ Jesus and on the gospel whereby the good news of God’s merciful action … is made known; we do not place our ultimate trust in anything other than God’s promise and saving work in Christ. This excludes ultimate reliance on our faith, virtues, or merits, even though we acknowledge God’s working in these by grace alone …” (See the Anderson, Murphy, and Burgess edition from 1985.) Even the Catechism of the Church states that “justification has been merited for us by the passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for all men (§§ 1992). In light of all this, must a person assent to forensic justification in order to be considered Christian in a post-Luther age? As a Protestant, I believe in a one-time, judicial declaration of righteousness while my Catholic/Orthodox brother believes in progressive justification. But if we both believe that it is nothing other than the work of Christ that has merited our justification, can we not work positively toward that end?

70. jybnntt on 09 Jul 2007 at 1:06 pm #

    BrittanyB,

    You wrote:

    “I am simply questioning whether or not an assent to forensic justification is necessary for salvation.”

    I have not said, nor do I believe this is true.

    You wrote:

    “I do think that you’re overlooking a couple of things, however. Even though an authoritative statement did not come from the universal Church until 325, Trinitarian teaching was normative throughout the church until that point.”

    I completely agree, which is why I wrote: “Prior to that time [Nicae] there was no such worked-out understanding of trinity. The fundamentals of trinity were certainly there implicitly, but the clarified language and nuanced system had yet to be articulated like it was at Nicae and later at Constantinople (381).”

    BTW, great homework on this point!

    You wrote:

    “What you have in Nicea is an ecumenical statement by the universal church clearly defining what must be believed by the faithful.”

    Not quite technically. It was certainly universal if you don’t count the Arians.

    Again, great homework on this point as well!

    You wrote:

    “The same, however, cannot be said of Luther’s position on justification. Unlike the Trinity, which has always been taught by the Church, the idea of forensic justification was certainly not normative within the early/medieval period. ”

    I covered this argument as well as all of your supporting arguments and evidences in a previous response to Dr. Wallace (comment #67) as well as my previous reply to you (#62 and 63). Slipping on the homework here!

    You wrote:

    “In light of all this, must a person assent to forensic justification in order to be considered Christian in a post-Luther age?”

    Again, I think I’ve answered this question several times throughout this discussion. Ansolutely not. Our faith is not in our faith, but the finished work of Jesus Christ.

    Thanks for taking the time to interact with my comments BrittanyB. I pray the Lord will continue to bless your study.

    Jay

71. stroxel on 10 Jul 2007 at 7:08 am #

    Hi Dan! I love the direction you are taking in this post. One of the problems comes from within the walls of places like your own institution. I recently asked a prof at DTS (an institution which I still hold in every high esteem) to define what it meant to be a Christian. His response went into a whole list of beliefs which sounded much more like what it meant to be an Evangelical – or perhaps what it meant to be an Evangelical at DTS. For example, for some, the issue of Biblical inerrancy is being elevated to a defining point of being a Christian, which by extension becomes a judgment of heaven or hell. Somehow we have lost the essence of the gospel message.

72. Dan Wallace on 10 Jul 2007 at 10:44 am #

    I couldn’t agree more. Inerrancy is not vital for salvation. The Bible didn’t die on the cross; Jesus died on the cross.

73. Vance on 10 Jul 2007 at 11:20 am #

    Exactly. The way some fundamentalists talk, you wonder how anyone ever gets saved without a Bible in their hands. Think of the first few hundred years of the Church when some had no texts whatsoever, and no one had anything like the complete group of texts we have now.

    And, some had incorrect texts, and some texts now considered non-canonical.

    How on Earth did they ever get saved?!

    Now, I say that as a member of the Gideons with nothing but love and dedication to the power of the Bible. But our desire for fixed and certain answers, and simple ones at that, can lead us pretty far astray sometimes.

74. jybnntt on 10 Jul 2007 at 11:28 am #

    Vance,

    Thank you for your service as a Gideon! I was impacted deeply by the Gideon ministry while in college. I praise God for it.

    Jay

75. Vance on 10 Jul 2007 at 12:23 pm #

    You’re welcome! It really is a great organization and I love being involved with it!

76. tobias on 10 Jul 2007 at 8:36 pm #

    I’ve been following this post and its comments and, just for fun, I pasted it all into Word (Microsoft’s, not God’s) to see how much I’ve read and you’ve wrote.

    With standard 1 inch margins and a 12-point Times New Roman font, it spans 59 pages and 27,509 words (not counting this comment)! If you subtract the words that are parts of the blog (names, times, links), you’ve probably got nearly 27,000 words!

    Cool stuff, and great conversation. I’ve never had or seen a dialogue like on, on this topic.

    -T

77. ross.strader on 10 Jul 2007 at 11:28 pm #

    I wonder if the vatican got wind of this post?

    http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-eur/2007/jul/10/071000950.html

    This has been a great discussion!

    rs

78. Hawke on 11 Jul 2007 at 6:22 am #

    I was wondering the same thing Ross.

    I am waiting to see the responses from some of the Protestants/Evangelicals before assuming too much

79. Denny Burk » I’m still at least 51% Protestant on 16 Jul 2007 at 12:50 pm #

    [...] it is interesting to read some questions raised by my old mentor Daniel Wallace over at the “Parchment and Pen” blog. Although Wallace’s remarks are not a response to the Pope’s recent [...]

80. » Blog Archive » I’m still at least 51% Protestant on 16 Jul 2007 at 1:41 pm #

    [...] it is interesting to read some questions raised by my old mentor Daniel Wallace over at the “Parchment and Pen” blog. Although Wallace’s remarks are not a response to the Pope’s recent [...]

81. ChadS on 16 Jul 2007 at 5:19 pm #

    M. Jay Bennett,

    I think you have severely misunderstood Roman Catholic theology when you attempted to label the Church as being semi-Pelagian (see posts 3, 21, 25 & 28 for various parts of the discussion). Your assumption seems to be that Catholics believe that their good works and actions achieve some merit with God that acts in addition to the the grace already given freely to us by God.

    This couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, by extension, are heresies that the Church has already condemned. First at the Council of Carthage, led by St. Augustine, in 416 & 418 and then further ratified by the ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431. The Church has never taught and never will teach those false teachings. Any idea that the Church has endorsed those teachings comes from an erroneous view of Church theology.

    The book of James provides many examples of verses that praise good works. James 2:18 says “Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.” Further along, James writes: “You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless?” and “As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.”

    These verses provide the Catholic understanding of the role of good works in the life of a Christian. Good works are the fruit of our faith. Faith is partially an action on our part but it is only possible through the grace that God has poured out upon us. Good works result from our faith and desire to serve and please God. None of this is possible without God’s grace.

    Pelagius held that man had the ability to fulfill God’s commands by exercising his free will totally apart from God’s grace or will. The Catholic Church rightly and explicitly rejects this view from the moment it first condemned it in 418 until the present day.

    So, to say that the Catholic Church teaches a semi-Pelagian or cooperationist theology is simply wrong.

    ChadS

82. fbeckwith on 16 Jul 2007 at 9:22 pm #

    ChadS is right on the money. A book that I believe offers the best account of the different positions in the Pelagian controversy is J. N. D. Kelly’s Early Christian Doctrine.

Trackback URI |