Michael Horton has responded to idiotic claims that his blurb on the jacket cover Scott Hahn’s Covenant and Communion was somehow an endorsement of Pope Benedict XVI’s theology. Horton’s clarification is here.
Of course, all of this should be obvious. Michael Horton is one of the foremost defenders of Confessional Reformed theology. Some might say he is a strident defender of Reformed Orthodoxy. His Reformed bona fides are impeccable and beyond dispute. And yet. And yet even the slightest word of encouragement of a book related to the theology of a Roman Catholic Pope and commentators on this blog and around the internet offer words of uncharitable suspicion at best and outraged condemnation at worst.
What is wrong with the conservative Reformed community? Why this posture of constant suspicion when dealing with each other? Why this incestuous insistence that we only read books written by other Reformed authors, that we never find insights from works written outside the camp? This is nothing less than absurdity.
Have we forgotten that Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex founds its intellectual origins among the Spanish Jesuits? That Abraham Kuyper’s social theory often sounds suspiciously like 19th Century Papal encyclicals on social teaching? That the Puritans looked sympathetically upon the Jansenists during the 17th Century? That John Owen contemplated writing a history of Jansenism? And if not, are we not able to read the works of Pope Benedict XVI or Scott Hahn and appreciate their engagement with Biblical Theology in hopes that common ground can be established based on the text of Scripture?
Stop the hate!!!!
“in hopes that common ground can be established based on the text of Scripture?”
It is my understanding that the Roman church does not base its faith on the text of scripture, but on the authority of the Roman church (which, they say, gave us scripture in the first place). Is this not correct? If so, then how can common ground ever be established without us converting to Roman Catholicism?
Louis- a good question. All that I am suggesting is that reading Hahn’s book on the Pope’s Biblical Theology is not a bad place to start when trying to come to the answer.
The reason is that Hahn is a guy who understands and “does” Biblical Theology in the Vos/Ridderbos/Gaffin/Gamble tradition despite the fact that he converted from Geneva to Rome and is well equipped to help mediate discussion with a Pope whose is likely the most Bible centered theologian to serve as Bishop of Rome since… well, at least in a long time.
Take advantage of the times. Prejudice (in the Burkean sense) has its place but blind hatred is an ugly sin.
As a Reformed person who is tending away from the belief that Catholic theology contradicts the gospel, I believe the problem is that many Reformed people, including myself previously, think Catholic theology is a variant of semi-Pelagianism where salvation is partially by grace and partially by works apart from grace.
But orthodox Catholics are not semi-Pelagian, which they condemned as heresy, since they believe justification is by grace through faith exercised in baptism. In other words, it’s all by grace, contra the semi-Pelagians.
To me, it comes down to what precisely Paul was condemning in the Judaizers; I am not sure. Was he condemning the Judaizers as–pardon the anachronism–semi-Pelagians in that though their faith was by grace, they added obedience to the Torah, apart from grace, to the requirement for justification? Or was he simply condemning obedience to the old covenant, even by grace, as a requirement for justification as a denial of the new covenant in Christ? Or the third option, was he condemning as anathema obedience to any law–even to the new covenant baptism–as a requirement for justification.
The third option is the only one where it would be clear to me that Paul is condemning Catholic theology. The second option would mean that Paul anathematizes obedience (by grace) to the old covenant as a part of justification, but not obedience (by grace) to the new covenant (baptism) as Catholics believe; the Catholic error is not anathema here. The first option leaves Catholics most unscathed by Paul’s critique, because Catholics are simply not semi-Pelagian.
I would appreciate your sympathetic assessment of my thoughts, which I’m trying to work through. And for the Catholic lurkers whose views are being dissected, I am sorry for any offense; please be patient with me.
Note the R. Catholic use of Augustine, in their history.
It’s not a phenomenon confined to the reformed. The Onion Dome had a great spoof about a certain ‘Catechumen Vasily’: here & here. Mutatis mutandis, all the same quirks appear.
Nonetheless, there are aggravating factors in the reformed case. We take pride in the intellectual rigor of our theology. We are also a small community with a high percentage of converts. Add to those factors the impersonal quality of internet conversations, and you are well on the way to an account of why we have so obnoxious a presence in the blogosphere. But all the traditions have their e-warriors, epigones of some or other exalted apologist, and that is a major reason why online discussion of religion is frustrating and often fruitless.
I was going to point this out to everyone but see you already have. Thanks for this reminder.
It seems the desire to destroy plurality in thought or life is a sad result of Hegelian idealism present within Christianity. Some cannot live without Christ ruling everything in the same manner. Such rationalism feeds upon others in abject fear.
William,
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply.
Albert,
Although disagreements with Roman Catholics tend to crystalize around the issue of justification, there is far more to it than that. One has to consider the place of Mary in their theology, their foundational source of authority, the sacraments, and various other doctrines before deciding whether it is “another gospel.” Justification itself cannot be considered apart from these things, as they all play their part in RC soteriology.
Trent, I say this reluctantly and with some trepidation, does come near to teaching another gospel in chapter 16 of the decree on justification:
“For since Christ Jesus Himself, as the head into the members and the vine into the branches, continually infuses strength into those justified, which strength always precedes, accompanies and follows their good works, and without which they could not in any manner be pleasing and meritorious before God, we must believe that nothing further is wanting to those justified to prevent them from being considered to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained in its due time, provided they depart this life in grace.” (italics added)
In fairness, several things must be noted. First, modern statements of Roman Catholic teaching do not stress what Lane calls Trent’s “more provocative element,” viz. this business about fully satisfying of the law. Second, as the decree emphasizes, it is only by the grace constantly poured into us that we are able to keep the law. Third, although the decree is not explicit, it can be argued plausibly that we are deemed to have satisfied the law specifically and only in reference to the law’s demands within the economy of redemption. Taken at face value, Trent seems to imply that we are forgiven in the gospel only to be returned to the condition of our first parents in the garden, needing by obedience to pass a test and so secure eternity. Our condition, however, is not strictly identical to Adam’s. For, grace amazingly abounds towards and in us, and the standard by which we are judged is accommodated to the gospel dispensation.
Some passages from Bellarmine, quoted in Latin by Hodge, and here rendered roughly (caveat lector!), show how a thoroughgoing papal champion qualifies the doctrine:
“The argument, if it proves anything, proves that actual justice is not perfect: but it does not prove that habitual justice, by which are formally just… is not thus perfect, so that we absolutely, simply, and properly are called just, and are. For we are not formally just by our own work, but by the work of God, who at the same time wipes away our sins and infuses the habit of faith, hope and love. Moreover, the works of God are perfect… wherefore baptized children are truly just, even though they have done no works.”
“For although actual justice in a certain sense is imperfect, on account of the mixing of venial faults, and needs the daily forgiveness of sin; nevertheless, it does not on this account fail to be true justice, and also perfect in its own certain way.”
“It is only habitual justice through which we are named and are formally just: to be sure, actual justice, i.e. truly just works, justifies indeed, as St James says, when he states in chapter two that ‘from works is a man justified’–but meritoriously, not formally.”
By treating the formal cause of justification not simply as inherent righteousness, but inherent habitual righteousness, Bellarmine means to deflect the criticism that our holiness is imperfect, an unstable support for justification. He uses the distinction of habitual and actual, which is not entirely unlike the difference between definitive and progressive sanctification. Protestants complain that Rome collapses justification into sanctification, which incomplete and involves our works. Yet if the focus is really on definitive sanctification, there is less ground for the objection (or rather, the objection changes).
Anyhow, even in view of the qualifications, Trent’s perspective on the law seems very problematic. The accent on merit and satisfying the law inverts great themes of the gospel, and the Reformers were quite right in their opposition. It is true that as Christians we love God’s commandments and keep an evangelical obedience that God graciously accepts and even rewards. But this is not really justification. In Christ not only is our fall undone, but we are carried forever past the garden’s probation to a better place. For our sin was put to death in the Saviour’s body on his cross; united to him, we died to the law with him; and having died and been released from the law, we were also raised again with Christ to new life. His resurrection, the vindication of his righteousness, becomes our triumph through faith; and we are now seated with Christ in the heavenly places, already secure in the enjoyment of God’s perfect love, even though in this life we never attain the perfection for which we strive.
louis, I understand what you’re saying. But let’s take this one step at a time, shall we?
Iohannes, thanks for your lengthy reply. I’m afraid you may have been mistaken as to what I’m looking for. I am quite confident that the Reformers’ view of justification is more accurate.
I also understand what salvation entails for a Catholic.
What I am unclear about is what, precisely, Paul is anathematizing in Galatians, which has implications for how we should view particular Catholic theologies.
I do not want to seem ungrateful for your lengthy reply, however; I do appreciate it. It kind of missed what I was looking for.
In other words, I intentionally asked a narrow, very specific question so that it might be answered within the confines of this comments section and avoid the “there’s too much to talk about” concern of louis.
Hi Albert,
Sorry, I had the general topic in mind, not your question specifically. Still, I think to tackle your question we must locate just where the two sides differ over justification.
All agree that the justified are obligated to observe the commandments. Moreover, the reformed can acknowledge with Roman Catholics that heaven is in some sense a reward promised for our works. For Calvin, as for Trent, the faith that works by love is required for justification. Notably, however, for Calvin, the outworking of faith by our obedience in no way enters into our justification before God. Interior renewal and good works rather accompany justification and testify to it.
Since both sides keep justification and sanctification together, the controversy involves more nuance than the polemics of either camp reflect. The real debate centers on the formal cause of justification. As McGrath explains, “A ‘formal’ cause is the direct, or most immediate, cause of something.” What divides Trent from both Protestants and certain early Catholic reformers known as Spirituali is the insistence that the “single formal cause” of justification is the righteousness that God imparts to us, which is poured into us and thus inherent, or internal to us.
Because this dispute is technical, I do not think it is necessarily helpful to approach it in the stark terms of anathemas. We need to see the big picture before we decide what Paul would make of Trent. Besides, these days Roman Catholics downplay the sharp edge of their doctrine, its implication about satisfying the law. Indeed, when the Catechism quotes Therese of Lisieux at 2011, it significantly softens Trent, even at the risk of a “salutary lack of logic”.
With that said, the disagreement over justification is not trivial. If the formal cause is justice inherent in us, and if the standard for justification is perfect righteousness, then one must claim, as Trent boldly does, that in some manner we fully satisfy the law. It is the painful awareness that on our early pilgrimage we (the baptized) inevitably fall short of perfection that led in the sixteenth century to new appreciation of the need for Christ’s righteousness imputed to us. It was not just Protestants who saw this. Cardinal Contarini set forth the reason as clearly as any of the Reformers did:
“Seeing we have affirmed that we attain a twofold righteousness by faith: a righteousness inherent in us, as charity, and that grace whereby we are made partakers of the divine nature; and the justice of Christ given and imputed unto us, as being graft into Christ, and having put on Christ: it remaineth that we inquire, upon which of these we must stay and rely, and by which we must think ourselves justified before God, that is, to be accepted as holy and just, having that justice which it beseemeth the sons of God to have. I truly think, that a man, very piously and christianly, may say, that we ought to stay, to stay I say, as upon a firm and stable thing able undoubtedly to sustain us, upon the justice of Christ given and imputed to us, and not upon the holiness and grace that is inherent in us. For this our righteousness is but imperfect, and such as cannot defend us, seeing in many things we offend all, &c.; but the justice of Christ which is given unto us, is true and perfect justice, which altogether pleaseth the eyes of God, and in which there is nothing that offendeth God. Upon this therefore, as most certain and stable, we must stay ourselves, and believe that we are justified by it, as the cause of our acceptation with God: this is that precious treasure of Christians, which whosoever findeth, selleth all that he hath to buy it.”
Cardinal Pole initially felt the same way:
“Never can it truly be said that man is justified before God by works, as much by those performed apart from grace, which merely are sins, as by those done in grace, even though these, as far as they indeed proceed from grace, are both called good and are; for nonetheless they are wrought in us and by us, who from our own selves are always bad, and they can never be so good, that we may be justified before God through them.” (another <a href="http://ratisbon.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/pole_latin.pdf"rough translation)
It seems Pole changed his beliefs only when what happened at Trent, where he served as a papal legate, forced him to choose between his church and his evangelical convictions. If Dermot Fenlon is right, the tension in Pole’s conscience during the council’s debate on justification may actually have impaired his health.
In any case, what should we make of Trent? I think St Paul would say we are playing with fire whenever we talk much of righteousness within us and of our satisfying the law. It is true, as the reformers acknowledged, that we have an incipient, inherent righteousness: but this should not be a focus of our attention in justification coram Deo. When suitably qualified, the Roman doctrine loses a lot of its offence. The qualifications, however, will likely appear as so much refined nonsense to the one who looks on himself as the reformers did. The basic mistake of Trent is to bring a category from the law, our obedience, into the interpretation of our standing before God. It is a category mistake even when we think of grace alone enabling us sufficiently to keep the law. For, if we are become sons of God and heirs with Christ, we are, simply put, no longer under the law as a condition of our acceptance with God. Once united to Christ, his life and death and resurrection take us past the judgment seat of God, into his very household. This is a truth we would be wise not to obscure, and we should rejoice that Roman Catholics today (Hahn among them!), consistently or not, are doing much to embrace it.
I dread long comments and apologize for this one. It unfortunately takes a bit of space to address so complicated a matter half fairly.
Blessings in Christ,
John
*earthly pilgrimage, & sorry for the unclosed link.
An excellent post! And your call to ’stop the hate!!!!’ is most timely.
The Pope is the chief shepherd of another gospel. God Himself throug the inspired words of the Apostle Paul anathematized all those who teach another gospel.
The Roman Catholic Church anathematized the gospel at Trent, and has never recanted; indeed it cannot because it is “infallible” and hence is incapable of reforming it’s soul damning errors.
Horton should publicly apologize for endorsing Hahn’s satanic book, and he should retract his endorsement as a lapse in judgment.
As an analogy can we imagine a well known and respected child rape investigator endorsing the “study” of a book written by an earnest child rape enthusiast wherein the author attempts to distill the thoughts of the world’s most notorious and prolific child rapist into a useful guide for the exhortation and edification of like-minded and would-be child rapists, and their erstwhile proponents?
BLURB:
“Even when one disagrees with some of his child rapes, the world’s most notorious and prolific child rapist’s insights, as well as his engagement with the subject of child rape, offer a wealth of reflection. In this remarkable book, an earnest child rape enthusiast has drawn out the central themes of the world’s not notorious and prolific child rapist’s reflections on his child rapes in a highly readable summary. An eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important child rapist of our time.”
DISCLAIMER:
I disavowed agreement with some of the world’s most prolific and notorious child rapist’s conclusions (I agree with him on his affinity for children and other important points, but disagree strongly with other important points).
I endorsed the earnest child rape enthusiast’s book because it is “a highly readable summary” and “an eminently useful guide for introducing the thought of an important child rapist of our time.” Despite my strong disagreements with his views on a variety of issues, he is certainly “an important child rapist of our time.”
How is the Pope, who sits in the very seat of anti-christ leading countless millions of souls to eternal damnation by espousing the doctrines of demons any less utterly loathesome than the very worst criminal imaginable?
How can the satanic sewage that spills from his evil mind be worthy of reflection?
Pray tell, what “insights”, “conclusions” and “engagement with critical scholarship” coming from a mouthpiece of Satan are worthy of a “wealth of reflection” by the blood-bought children of God? What communion hath darkness with light?
And what exactly does Dr. Horton find so “remarkable” about a propaganda piece written by an apostate apologist of an apostate false religion?
Should we expect Dr. Horton to provide dust jacket blurbs for the next round of LDS or Watchtower apologetic literature? Are their theologians not also profound and insightful as they articulate their damnable doctrines of demons and engage with critical scholarship?
Wake up Mike, you got played by Hahn.
In Christ,
CD
Rome does not recant dogmas. She does, however, “develop” them to the point that they become scarcely recognizable.
Even at the time of Trent Rome’s practice with respect to justification was better than her theory–look again at the quotations from Bellarmine in the other thread. And the practice has gotten better over subsequent eras.
Consider Therese of Lisieux:
I am very happy that I am going to heaven. But when I think of this word of the Lord, “I shall come soon and bring with me my recompense to give to each according to his works,” I tell myself that this will be very embarrassing for me, because I have no works. … Very well! He will render to me according to His works for His own sake.
And that other “apostate”, Fr Neuhaus:
When I come before the judgment throne, I will plead the promise of God in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. I will not plead any work I have done, although I will thank God that he has enabled me to do some good. I will plead no merits other than the merits of Christ, knowing that the merits of Mary and the saints are all from him; and for their company, their example, and their prayers through my earthly life I will give everlasting thanks. I will not plead that I had faith, for sometimes I was unsure of my faith, and in any event that would be to turn faith into a meritorious work of my own. I will not plead that I held the correct understanding of ‘justification by faith alone,’ although I will thank God that that he led me to know ever more fully the great truth that much misunderstood doctrine was intended to protect. Whatever little growth in holiness I have experienced, whatever strength I have received from the company of the saints, whatever understanding I have attained of God and his ways… these and all other gifts I will bring gratefully to the throne. But in seeking entry to that heavenly kingdom, I will, with Dysmas, look to Christ and Christ alone.
These sentiments, far more than Trent, reflect what the RCC actually believes and teaches. We can judge Rome inconsistent on this matter, but let’s at least be happy for the inconsistency!
I think the obvious reason for discomfort with Hahn is not that he’s Roman Catholic but a convert from the Reformed Faith that has devoted much of his professional life to attacking his former religion.
Dear Coram Deo,
What a fascinating post. Thank you profoundly for such an insight into the Protestant mind. And, how amazing it is that you’ve discovered such profound truths by yourself. What a blessing for the members of your denomination and family, I am sure.
I am curious, though. When you sign your post “in Christ,” do you mean you speak for Christ, as Christ, or like Christ? In form, substance, or both?
Anyway, congratulations on being one of the elect. I’m glad to see you’ve used your salvation to promote beauty, truth, and goodness as well as faith, hope, and love in God’s creation. I’m sure He’s proud of you as well (though, sadly, as a Roman Catholic, I don’t possess infallible knowledge or wisdom; so my comment here about His pride in you in purely speculation).
Yours,
Brad
That is: “is purely speculation.”
P.S. Coram Deo, as I prepare for my post-Thanksgiving western heritage core courses, I’m reading through various writings of Luther, Calvin, and the Council of Trent. Would you mind letting me know which part of Trent’s rulings form the “anti-gospel.” Here, for example, is Trent’s statement on justification:
“That they who by sin had been cut off from God, may be disposed through His quickening and helping grace to convert themselves to their own justification by freely assenting to and co-operating with that grace; so that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Ghost, man himself neither does absolutely nothing while receiving that inspiration, since he can also reject it, nor yet is he able by his own free will and without the grace of God to move himself to justice in His sight.”
Any insight you could provide would greatly aid me with my freshmen at Hillsdale. I will certainly read your post and refer them to your fascinating website during our discussions.
Dr Birzer,
We can agree there is no use for the vituperation that seems always to attend this controversy. It is to be abhorred. I hope, however, that we do not confuse the harangues with the controversy itself.
What distresses Protestants about Trent is the insistence on a right to heaven that comes through satisfying the law. Qualify that right as one may, it cannot but be deeply problematic.
Now is not the time to rehash the whole matter. As my final thought on this thread, I would recommend Lancelot Andrewes’ sermon on justification in Christ’s name, which sums up the matter excellently.
Blessings in Christ,
John
Dear John,
Thanks for the well-reasoned, tempered response. And, you’re absolutely right–let’s not confuse the harangue with the controversy. Well stated. My dripping sarcasm yesterday didn’t help the discussion much. Admittedly!
In all honesty, though, I’m not sure I understand the problem. The statement on justification from Trent sounds pretty much like something from Luther or Calvin.
I’ve not read Andrewes’s sermon. I look forward to it–especially given T.S. Eliot’s admiration for Andrewes.
Again, thanks for injecting a little calm into the discussion.
Yours,
Brad
John,
Email me privately if you get a chance. Thanks.
Brad (bbirzer at hillsdale dot edu)
John, Brad et al,
If I may posit a spanner into the discussion, it would be helpful to know how Reformed Theology understands the Sermon on the Mount with regard to justification.
It would seem that the issue of justification frequently centers around the letters of Paul. It is important to remember that Paul’s letters must always be seen in the light of the Gospel of Christ and not the other way around. Clearly Christ’s words that we are blessed as “peacemakers” inherently links our actions with our blessing.
Is it not possible, as the Catholic Church asserts, that we are justified by the grace of Christ alone, but that our actions do have consequence on our worthiness to enter into God’s presence?
Why are these theological concepts at odds? Without the grace of Christ no one is saved. Without holiness no one is suitable for heaven. Christ sanctifies us but what we do is a direct consequence of who we are. Our choices have repercussions. It is the hand of God which carries us to Him, but we never lose the freedom to jump out into the fire. Sin has real results.
I realize that this is a rather basic point and surely has been answered by someone somewhere, but it would seem an important one to address within our discussion here.
Iohannes et al.,
I appreciate your comments, especially so in light of the need to be peaceable in so far as it is possible in our public Internet context.
I think the provided summaries of the doctrinal differences between Catholic and Reformed understandings of justification are quite good; indeed, I am glad that they confirm my own understandings of the differences.
Yet, I must admit a bit of perplexity at the risk of seeming unappreciative: while I do understand why these summaries would be offered–and they are good ones–I don’t quite grasp why the exegetical question is being avoided. I greatly enjoy systematic theologies of justification, but I think the exegetical question asked in my first comment of what was really getting Paul riled up about the Judaizers in his epistle to the Galatians is at least equally as important as accurate summaries of Reformed and Catholic doctrines of justification.
I do understand a possible response of “why don’t you just check a bible commentary or something,” but in anticipation of such a reasonable response, I would agree I can do so, and yet I believe there is great value to a exegetical viewpoint that is sympathetic to both sides, which is what I believed I could find here and which is less readily available in such texts.
Lastly, if in the opinion of VIPs, I should drop this line of inquiry for now, please let me know and I will gladly do so.
Cheers,
Albert
Horton perhaps aspires to be the new Packer, and blurb everything, including the next NT Wright. Horton has endorsed Stillman’s Dual Citizens, which reads Romans 6:14 not in terms of law and gospel, but merely in terms of redemptive history. The clock has moved forward, and God is less strict now: that is the Romanist gospel, but it is not the gospel of Luther or Calvin.
I quote from Stillman p 143: “According to this view, under law means under the condemnation of God’s moral law, and under grace speaks of the deliverance from this condition. Some problems arise from this view. First, Paul usually uses the word law to refer to the law of Moses in particular…When Paul spoke to those saints in the churches of Galatia who desired to be under the law, was he talking to people who longed to be under the condemnation of the law?…When Paul wrote that Jesus was born under the law, did he mean that Christ was born under the condemnation of the law? Under law means under the jurisdiction of the Mosaic covenant. Furthermore, if under law and under grace are existential categories describing an individual’s condemnation or justification, then Paul’s argument is a non-sequitur. It is not justification but sanctification that frees us from the dominion of the sin.”
It is that last sentence which is the most objectionable (to me) in Stillman’s book. Of course, that reading of Romans 6 is very common to many Reformed people. Like John Murray, or Lloyd Jones, or Sinclair Ferguson, they tell us that “freed from sin” in Romans 6:7 cannot mean “justified from sin” because this chapter is about sanctification and not about justification. It seems obvious to me that this is simply begging the question.
Yes, amen.. even Geeerhardus Vos in his: ‘The Pauline Eschatology’ sees justification & sanctification are one work together. As to Law and Gospel, I don’t think St. Paul taught that combination always for Gentile Christians. He does appear to argue in an ontological way at Mars Hill (Acts 17:22-28).