I wanted to comment on the continuing discussion on Hahn and Horton but as the conversation has drifted toward the difference between Rome and Geneva on Justification, I thought I would create a new post.
Let me suggest that the primary doctrinal difference with regard to justification, and it is a large difference indeed, is whether we are justified because we are good (taking for granted that that the goodness is formed by the sanctifying grace of Christ) or whether we are good because we have been justified by the wholly gratuitous imputation of Christ’s righteousness. All parties agree that holiness matters. The question is whether our personal holiness is the root or the fruit of our justification. As the heart of the question is whether justification is wholly forensic and judicial… a matter of imputation or infusion of Christ’s righteousness.
In order for our Roman Catholic readers not to be completely befuddled by Protestant reactions to Trent, our readers have to understand that Protestants are used to thinking of the imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness as the sole hope of our salvation as the gospel. Sanctification, the mortification of the flesh, putting to death the old man, and renewing our minds after the likeness of Christ matter much… but they are not the center of our hope (but rather like filthy rags in comparison to the depths of Christ’s righteousness for us).
To answer Kevin- the Reformed read the Sermon on the Mount in the way we read the whole of the law… at once a definition of the ethics of the Kingdom and a reflection of our ethical duty as well as a reminder of how far short our personal righteousness fall when considered against the perfect standard of God’s holy law. Therefore, the Sermon on the Mount both encourages us to a renewed commitment to keeping God’s law while at the same time driving us away from our feeble attempts to keep the law in order to find our perfect righteousness in the finished work of Christ.
Bill,
One key point of difference (with respect to justification) is the role of agape in justification. The Catholic doctrine maintains that agape is constitutive of justification (and that faith is necessary for agape). In the Catholic doctrine, only those having agape are justified. No one who does not have agape is justified. I explained this in more detail in “A Reply From a Romery Person.”
In the peace of Christ,
- Bryan
Protestants today would do well to to expand their vision of the Gospel, not to drive justification from the center, but to restore the other benefits of redemption to the center with it. Surely being made partakers of the divine nature is at least as great a blessing as is the forgiveness necessary to it. Calvin saw this; as he said, “the end of the gospel is, to render us eventually conformable to God, and, if we may so speak, to deify us.” Our righteousness is as filthy rags before the law’s demands: but that does not make our sanctification less important than our justification. It means only that our sanctification, being in this life a work begun but incomplete, is ordered to something besides our standing before the throne of judgment.
Bill,
Thank you for your reply to my question and for initiating this important dialogue as a separate post.
Your comments on the Reformed tradition are helpful and Bryan’s very extensive posting (“A Reply From a Romery Person”) from his site offer great clarification on the issue.
Again, I am certain that these questions have been addressed elsewhere and often, but I sense from the amount of dialogue in webland occurring between Protestant and Catholic thinkers (in fact from the very existence of both this website and Bryan’s, et al) that the continual conversation is beginning to produce some fruit of understanding. And that indeed is a blessing.
So if I might further my question, how then can the Reformed incorporate the concept of freewill into their theology?
As a Catholic I see in the Gospels parables and lessons regarding the choices made by persons. Christ saves some of his most biting criticisms for the hypocrites: those whose words are not matched by their actions.
I have no doubt that Reformed theology must have an understanding of this which is unclear to me. But in attempting to understand it, I keep running into the age-old dilemma:
If grace comes from God and we have no choice accepting it or rejecting it, isn’t the result is a theology of ‘utter’ predestination? That is, the world and all that is in it becomes but God’s chess board.
If grace comes from God and we must somehow either accept or reject it, then we are “acting” in our acceptance of his grace, are we not? As an old English major I can’t help but interject that “accept” is an action verb.
Our will must be involved in some way. What am I missing here?
Kevin,
It isn’t clear to me that the Reformed differ much from Thomists on this point, apart from terminology and emphasis. Both (I think) uncompromisingly assert free will and predestination; and the harmonization, however expressed, sooner or later runs up against a mystery. If you’re interested, the presbyterian standards address the topic in WLC 67 & 68:
Q. 67. What is effectual calling?
A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s almighty power and grace, whereby (out of his free and special love to his elect, and from nothing in them moving him thereunto) he doth, in his accepted time, invite and draw them to Jesus Christ, by his word and Spirit; savingly enlightening their minds, renewing and powerfully determining their wills, so as they (although in themselves dead in sin) are hereby made willing and able freely to answer his call, and to accept and embrace the grace offered and conveyed therein.
Q. 68. Are the elect only effectually called?
A. All the elect, and they only, are effectually called; although others may be, and often are, outwardly called by the ministry of the word, and have some common operations of the Spirit; who, for their willful neglect and contempt of the grace offered to them, being justly left in their unbelief, do never truly come to Jesus Christ.
Bill and others can explain the idea better than I can. For now, I’d just note that when Reformed sometimes deny free will, their denial is actually shorthand for the notion of a captive free will, which goes back to St Augustine, and which McGrath discusses here.
Kevin,
I want to echo John’s comment that the Reformed doctrine with regard to grace and the will is not at odds with Roman Catholic theology, at least as it was expressed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I was just reading Thomas on the question of predestination and find him to teach in conformity with what latter be referred to as “Reformed.”
Bryan,
Thank you for the link to your post on the question. I want to chew on it a bit before I respond.
BC
Bill and John,
Ah, yes, mystery! Catholics are great lovers of the mysteries of our God. I recognize the necessity of mystery in the question of freewill and predestination.
But Catholic theology uses the term “the elect” as bound with both God’s grace and the freewill of man. In its typical use in Catholic theology, to be “called” would be solely the action of God; man’s response to God’s call would be a separate action and one which is dependent upon man’s freewill. The elect must be called (God calls all His children to Him) and must respond by accepting the call. Man does have the option to decline.
By contrast, it would seem, based on WLC 68 (above posting), that only the elect are “effectually called.” If this is the case then there is a significant difference between Catholic understanding and Reform. And if so, I don’t understand how the Reform position allows for freewill.
Or am I misunderstanding the use of the phrase “effectually called”?
If the calling and man’s acceptance of it are both subsumed in the WLC use of “call” then I can see where confusion arises.
Could you clarify that?
Also, I still don’t understand how Reform theology would understand the Sermon on the Mount or Jesus’ criticism of the hypocrites.
Perhaps there is a single answer to both questions.
Kevin,
The Reformed distinguish between the well meant offer of the gospel by which the gospel offer is offered to all men. We affirm that this offer is “well meant” by God and that it is a sincere offer of salvation in Jesus Christ. Like Augustine and Aquinas, however, we affirm that man is dead in his sin and unable to respond to this offer without the grace of God making him alive, with eyes to see and ears to hear. Do the Reformed deny that God violates the sinners free will? No, rather we affirm that God graciously transforms the will in the effectual call so that the man dead in sin is transformed and enabled to embrace the offer of the gospel.
My reading of Augustine and Aquinas makes me think that the only difference on the issue of Predestination with the Reformed is the Reformed use of the doctrine as an encouragement to comfort and assurance rooted not in the weakness of our faith, hope, or love, but in the sovereign pleasure of the Triune God and the Kingly reign of the Shepherd who has promised not to loose one sheep that His Father had given.
To help you understand the Sermon on the Mount, let me assure you that we find it directly applicable to the lives of all men, but specifically of Christ’s disciples. Those who love Him must keep His commandments. The question is this…. does God love us because we keep the commandments, or do we keep the commandments because He has loved us and poured out upon us his abundant grace.
I don’t believe the matter is about how we are able to KEEP the commandments. As you have noted, we both understand God’s grace as the source of our life in Him and as necessary for our salvation.
But what if we examine the other side of that question: What is the effect of our NOT keeping the commandments? God’s Love for us is not the issue, nor is the effectiveness of His grace. But mustn’t we acknowledge the weakness of man and the reality that God’s grace does not remove from us the freewill to choose against him? Certainly none of us would claim to be sinless even AFTER our conversion to Christ.
So what then is the effect of our actions when we do not do the will of God? Do our sins after our conversion affect our relationship with God, and thus our suitability for salvation?
Dr. Chellis, thanks for addressing that conversation. I had hoped it would remain a conversation among those capable of sympathy for these differing views, but perhaps it is not to be on the internet.
Cheers,
Albert
Albert, I think I am missing something as I do not understand your comment.
Kevin,
When God’s adopted sons disobey him, they incur his fatherly displeasure. The Lord then chastens them, sometimes severely, to bring them to repentance. He does not, however, give them over again to death. For the elect will not finally forsake God: not because they do not have that option, but because God so works in them that they do not take it.
Albert,
I think another passage in Bellarmine, one cited by Andrewes, may shed some light on why the Reformers saw an analogy to the Judaizers. What follows is from book 5, chapter 3 of De Justificatione Impii. Because the interpretation is likely to be controversial, the original is given with the rough translation.
Calvinus aliter respondet, mercedem videlicet, cum dicitur de vita aeterna, non accipi proprie, sed figurate: quoniam vita aeterna in Scripturis vocatur haereditas, haereditas autem non est proprie merces, cum debeatur filiis, quia filii sunt, non quia sibi eam propriis laboribus pepererunt. At neque haec solutio multum valet. Nam cum in Scripturis vita aeterna non minus saepe, fortasse etiam saepius dicatur merces, quam haereditas, unde probabit Calvinus, dicendum esse proprie haereditatem, improprie mercedem, et non potius contra, mercedem proprie, haereditatem improprie? Deinde, quid si utrumque possit dici proprie? habet enim vita aeterna conditionem mercedis et haereditatis. Datur enim ex promissione laborantibus, quod est mercedis proprium, et non datur nisi filiis, quod est proprium haereditatis.
At si filiis debetur haereditas, quia filii sunt, quod opus est pro ea adipiscenda laborare? Responsio est in promptu, nam tametsi parvulis, qui mox a Baptismo decedunt, vita aeterna donetur solo jure haereditatis, tamen voluit Deus filios suos, qui usum rationis habent, propriis laboribus, et meritis illam acquirere, ut duplici titulo illis vita aeterna deberetur, titulo videlicet haereditatis, et jure mercedis, quoniam enim magis honorificum est, habere aliquid ex merito, quam ex sola donatione, ideo Deus ut filios suos magis honoraret, id etiam eis praestitit, ut vitam aeternam per merita sibi pararent. Nam et ipsi Christo debita erat gloria corporis, et exaltatio nominis hoc ipso quod erat filius Dei, et tamen quia humiliavit semetipsum, factus obediens usque ad mortem, propterea Deus illum exaltavit, et dedit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen. Ut interim illud omittam, quod meritis operum redditur gradus aliquis gloriae sempiternae, ad quem non pertingunt, qui solo titulo haereditatis gaudent.
“Calvin answers differently, namely, that when recompense is spoken of in connection with eternal life, this is not taken in a proper sense, but figuratively: because eternal life is called an inheritance in the Scriptures; and an inheritance is not properly a recompense, since it is owed to sons because they are sons, not because they have gained it for themselves by their own labors. But neither does this solution avail much. For, since in the Scriptures eternal life is said not less often—perhaps even more often—to be a recompense than to be an inheritance, how has Calvin proved that it is to be spoken of as an inheritance properly, a recompense improperly; and not rather, on the contrary, as a recompense properly, an inheritance improperly? Then, what if it can be said to be both properly? For, eternal life has the condition of being a recompense and an inheritance. For it is given to laborers according to promise, as their possession by recompense; and it is given to none except sons, as their possession by inheritance.
“But if the inheritance is owed to sons, because they are sons, what need is there to work to obtain it? The answer is at hand. For, although eternal life is given to children, as soon as they go out from baptism, by the right of inheritance alone; nevertheless, God willed that his sons, who have the use of reason, should acquire that life by their own works and merits: so that eternal life might be owed to them by a double title, to wit, by title of inheritance and by right of recompense. For, since it is more honorable to have something by merit, than by donation alone, God therefore, so as to honor his sons the more, appointed this also for them, that they should get themselves eternal life through merits. For, glory in the body and exaltation of name were owed to Christ himself both on this account, because he was the son of God; and still also because He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death; for which cause, God hath exalted him and given him a name which is above all names. Thus I might for a time pass by the fact that some degree of everlasting glory is rendered to the merits of works; and they do not attain to this, who rejoice in the sole title of inheritance.”
The obedience in view here goes beyond baptism. Bellarmine is setting forth the Tridentine thesis that inasmuch as God graciously pours strength into us, “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.”
This idea that we are to supplement the title of inheritance with a right through merit is what led the Reformers to draw a parallel to Paul’s opponents. I don’t think the parallel is exact, for reasons already discussed, but it seems close enough to raise serious concerns.
Bill,
I can see the semantic distinction you are making, but isn’t the end result that you effectively remove freewill? If I am incapable of choosing death then I lack the freedom to do so. It would seem that I enter a proto-heaven in which I am protected from death no matter what my personal choices might be.
Aren’t we called to a daily conversion? If not then why do our actions post-conversion matter? It would seem to logically follow that if I am converted in such a permanent way, then I can be assured that I am choosing rightly no matter what I do because the grace of God is protecting me.
Kevin,
The point we are discussing is not a matter of dispute between the Reformed and Catholics… although there may be dispute between the Reformed and some Catholics.
Let me be clear, the Reformed wholly affirm man’s free will. We wholly deny that man is a moral robot. At the same time, we wholly affirm God’s absolute sovereignty even over our free will. There is a paradox involved, but it is a paradox that the Bible demands that we accept.
St. Thomas explains the paradox in a way that is embraced by both the Reformed, and assuming Thomas to reflect Catholic theology, Catholics:
“The justification of the ungodly is achieved through God moving a man to justice, as Romans 3 affirms. Now God moves each thing according to its own manner. We see in natural things that what is heavy is moved by God in one way, and what is light in another way, on account of the different nature of each. He likewise moves a man to justice in a manner which accords with the condition of his nature, and it is proper to the nature of man that his will should be free. Consequently, when a man has use of his free will, God never moves him to justice without use of his free will. With all who are capable of being so moved, God infuses the gift of justifying grace in such wise that he also moves the free will to accept it.”12ae, Q. 113, Article 3, from Aquinas on Nature and Grace.
Kevin,
The saints in glory have free will, as do the holy angels. So does fallen man. Not to choose an option, be it life or death, differs from not having that option.
The elect are capable of choosing death. God in his grace so governs their circumstances and disposes their wills that they do not in the end make that choice.
God’s power reaches to our wills, which really are ours all the same. St Augustine and Calvin are at one on this mystery, and the objection you raise applies equally to both.
Consider, for example, how Augustine expresses himself in On Rebuke and Grace:
“Therefore to the first man, who, in that good in which he had been made upright, had received the ability not to sin, the ability not to die, the ability not to forsake that good itself, was given the aid of perseverance,—not that by which it should be brought about that he should persevere, but that without which he could not of free will persevere. But now to the saints predestinated to the kingdom of God by God’s grace, the aid of perseverance that is given is not such as the former, but such that to them perseverance itself is bestowed; not only so that without that gift they cannot persevere, but, moreover, so that by means of this gift they cannot help persevering.” (ch 34)
“And thus God willed that His saints should not—even concerning perseverance in goodness itself—glory in their own strength, but in Himself, who not only gives them aid such as He gave to the first man, without which they cannot persevere if they will, but causes in them also the will; that since they will not persevere unless they both can and will, both the capability and the will to persevere should be bestowed on them by the liberality of divine grace. Because by the Holy Spirit their will is so much enkindled that they therefore can, because they so will; and they therefore so will because God works in them to will.” (ch 38)
It may be, as Mozley thought, that Augustine gave insufficient attention to the two-sided quality of scripture teaching about divine sovereignty and human freedom. If so, it would be a mistake of emphasis he and Calvin have in common. The gap between them does not really open until, as Bill mentioned, one turns to assurance. Though even there, I am not sure the divide is as great as it first appears.
Bill and John,
I think that there must be a misunderstanding here of both Augustine and Aquinas. Both are considered Doctors of the Church specifically because of their contributions to our understanding of the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Because the Catholic Church teaches its doctrine as a 2000 year continuum it is not possible for any part of its teachings to be at odds with another.
Though I am neither an Augustinian nor Thomistic scholar, I do know that their writings which have contributed to the Church’s understanding of its doctrine are not at odds with past or current Church teaching.
In the case of Aquinas, his understanding of justification is to be seen in the light of the whole body of his theological writings. In his Summa Theologica he goes into great detail regarding the difference between venial and mortal sins. Mortal sins being those which cut us off from God’s grace. Further, in this same section he references Augustine’s discussion of the same (ST, Q88, Art. 1, Obj. 4). Here he is referring not only to sins of the unbaptized but sins of the baptized who are in need of reconciliation with God through the sacrament of confession.
Although the practical aspects of the sacrament of confession have changed over time, the sacrament itself is as old as the Church and can be found in the Gospel of John. Christ established it in his Apostles (“Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven,” (John 20:23)) and the first reception of the sacrament of confession and reconciliation was by Peter from Christ as he confessed His love for Christ three times in penance for his three denials (John 21:15-17). In fact, every confession is made to Christ as we are reconciled through Christ. The priest simply acting *in persona Christi*, in the same way he acts when administering any of the sacraments.
The very existence of the sacrament of confession from the beginning of the Church indicates the theology regarding sin and sanctification. From the beginning the Church has recognized the need for reconciliation with God from our actual sins (as opposed to “original sin” from which we are definitively freed through baptism). The Church also recognizes the possibility of severing the relationship with God. Aquinas’ exegesis on mortal sin is helpful in understanding it.
I believe that the main issue here is a conflict of definition with Aquinas’ use of “justification” and the Reform definition of the same word. In Catholic theology there is a distinction between “justification” and “sanctification.” We are justified in Christ by His death and resurrection and our baptism through the Holy Spirit. We are sanctified by our participation in Christ through the Church. This is a daily work of conversion through Him, with Him and in Him. As St. Paul says, it is surrendering ourselves to uprightness which results in sanctification (Romans 6:19) and without this holiness no one can ever see the Lord (Heb 12:15).
Kevin,
Ugh. You are switching up the terms of the discussion at midpoint. My original post on Justification was meant to set forth where we disagree- are good works the fruit or the root of our justification. Or, if you like, should sanctification be lumped into our doctrine of justification. Neither John nor myself would suggest that we can claim either Augustine or Thomas Aquinas in defense of our doctrine of Justification. We claim Paul, Luther and Calvin.
Rather, the use of Augustine and Thomas was to respond to your question about the relationship between free will and God’s sovereignty. What we are saying, and I think both Catholic and Reformed theologians would be agreed, is that there need not be a controversy between Rome and Geneva on the question. The controversy has to do with whether our righteousness is the imputed righteousness of Christ as THE LAW KEEPER or whether our righteousness is the infused righteousness of Christ working in our lives. We maintain the former, Rome maintains the latter.
I love G.K. Chesterton but when it comes to the issue of predestination, he does not know what he is talking about. He creates an unhealthy division between St. Augustine and St. Thomas on the issue that helps cloud the debate between Geneva and Rome.
On justification we have much to disagree about, but I want to make sure we disagree over the things we disagree without having unhelpful disagreements where there should be unity.
Kevin,
With the ground cleared a bit, let me comment on the Christian’s duty to keep the law. Jesus said, “if you love me, keep my commandments.” He does not say, “If you keep my commandments, I will love you,” although the statement would be true enough.
By grace, God creates in use faith, hope, and love. He creates a faith that clings to Christ as our righteousness, and a love that expresses itself in “evangelical obedience”… the process of dying to sin and living in Christ.
Sometimes, because of various controversies, the Reformed seem to talk about Justification as if it was a gift that can be separated from Christ’s other gifts, union, adoption, sanctification, and glorification. When we talk this way, we do not mean it. Rather, Reformed theology teaches that our free justification by faith is rooted in union with Christ and, although a distinct gift, is never divorced from the other gifts. As we say, those whom God justifies, he sanctifies. In other words, no cheep grace. No hopes divorced from a living, growing, organic relationship to Christ our Head. We are living branches, united to the root of Christ.
I agree with Bill, & would add only that the theological tradition before the Reformation does not, I think, give unambiguous support to either side on justification. The question at issue simply had not been well posed prior to the sixteenth century, and for that reason, we should be careful about reading the debates of later times into ages not concerned with them. Cardinal Pole, it is worth noting, once likened Cardinal Contarini’s account of justification to “a pearl of great price,” which, “partly concealed, partly open, the Church has always held.” That sounds about right to me, and it is a notable remark because Contarini’s doctrine was virtually identical to Calvin’s. In any case, for more regarding continuity and discontinuity, I’d recommend having a look at this old discussion, especially the comments by Dr Witt in posts 24, 64, 88.
My sincere apologies if I switched terms midway. It was certainly not my intention. I am trying to follow the line of discussion as well as the distinctions you are making.
My response was to the following:
“the Reformed doctrine with regard to grace and the will is not at odds with Roman Catholic theology, at least as it was expressed by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. I was just reading Thomas on the question of predestination and find him to teach in conformity with what latter be referred to as “Reformed.””
I am trying to reconcile this statement with the full body of writings of Augustine, Aquinas, and the teachings of the Catholic Church and I am unable to do so. If these teach the possibility of mortal sin of the baptized then I don’t understand how that can be separated from the question of grace and the will. It would seem that they are inextricably linked.
Kevin,
Thanks. I see where the confusion entered the discussion. Indeed, Augustine and Thomas… as well Calvin and the Reformed Confession agree that the baptized can commit mortal sin and can end up in hell.
So where lies the difference? For Thomas, the elect are predestined to eternal life by an infallible degree. However, according to Thomas, some are elected to grace but not given the grace of perseverance. They may be baptized but can fall away. In essence, God elects some to grow up like a shoot but wither and die in the light. For Thomas, and for Augustine, the church is always a mixed multitude. It cannot be perfectly identified with the Kingdom of God in this age. Many live within its confines who will one day hear the declaration, “I never knew you.”
For the Reformed, baptism is not a sure sign of election. In fact, there are no sure signs of election visible to the church. Only the testimony of the Holy Spirit can provide a subjective sense that we belong to Christ, and this testimony of the Holy Spirit cannot be judged by the church. Therefore, some that appear to be Christians will prove themselves not to have been, at least in the sense that the inward reality did not match the outward profession. The elect will persevere to glory, will bear fruit worthy of repentance, and will grow in grace putting to death the old man and becoming more alive in Christ. Every step of the way their free will be actively engaged in choosing to grow in Christ or to, for a time, run away from him. Yet, every step of the way God’s superintending providence will be working… often contingently in relationship to man’s free will… to bring his elect to glory.
So let me ask what the center of your objection is- are you denying the sovereignty of God in the predestination of the elect? Are you really saying that man’s free will, unaided by grace can take hold of the gifts of eternal life?
Kevin,
If you have some time, try reading chapters 20-25 of St Augustine’s On Rebuke and Grace, which you can find at the EWTN website. Then compare J. B. Mozley’s discussion of those same chapters in pp 213-18 of the work available here. Also, compare Richard Field’s discussion of how it is that the elect, though they stumble, do not fall totally from grace: pp 431-33 of the work here. I apologize for burdening you with reading, but these texts will provide better answers than I can give in a blog comment.
Please also remember that in the wake of the Reformation and the Jansenist controversy the RCC has not necessarily been altogether comfortable with the later writings of St Augustine. Witness the article on predestinarianism in the old Catholic Encyclopedia, with its admission that “St. Augustine in the last years of his life fell a victim to an increased rigorism which may find its psychological explanation in the fact that he was called to be the champion of Christian grace against the errors of Pelagianism and Semipelagianism.” JJ O’Donnell, a leading Augustine scholar and now provost of Georgetown, has written (obviously with some exaggeration) that, when it comes to the writings against Pelagius, “Certainly very, very few readers except the most devout Calvinist will find themselves agreeing with the Augustinian view, even in a notional sense.” He goes on, “Jansen and his followers were as much enemies of Augustine as was Julian. Both did him the unkindness of taking his last arguments as seriously as he wished them to be taken and left him forever marked by them.”
Bill,
I’d be curious, again if you have time, what you make of Mozley’s reading of St Augustine in the passage linked above. Mozley was Newman’s brother-in-law & for a time played a major role in the Oxford Movement. After the Gorham judgment, which prompted Manning to convert to Rome, Mozley undertook a deep study of the fathers, chiefly Augustine, to settle his mind on the issue. This had the opposite effect on him, turning him from a Tractarian into something of evangelical high churchman.
Thanks Bill. I’ll give the citations a look.
Correction–Thanks John for the citations. I will take a look.
Bill,
Regarding your question: I believe the universal sovereignty of God to be absolute and that His grace is a necessity for eternal life.
However I also believe that God has granted us with freewill in order to offer to us the opportunity to love. If by His process of election He *causes* us to love then, it is not love. Love must be a choice and that choice must be made each and every day, each and every moment. I cannot choose to love at one moment in time and have that single choice cause me to love for the rest of my life on earth.
God is sovereign, but He has, in effect, granted to us the sovereignty over our own personal destiny by granting us freewill.
So while all of time and creation are enveloped by His love and therefore He knows the end of all things (He is the Alpha and the Omega), He, in his infinite mercy and love, has granted to every person created the possibility of loving as He loves–and thus the opportunity to exist with Him in His love for all Eternity.
The paradox is that though He creates us and though he knows the end result already (because He exists both inside and outside time itself) we indeed are ultimately responsible for whether or not we accept His gift of Love. It is His sovereign Divine plan that our actions have ultimate consequences.
Kevin,
Fair enough. I think that you are wrong we at least understand one another. There is a tradition with the Roman Catholic church that defends your side of things. You have taken the side of the Jesuits over against the Augustinians and the Dominicans. I, of course, as a Reformed believer, am much more comfortable with the the Augustinian and Dominican/Thomist line of thought.
I also affirm the centrality of man’s free will… but only in the light of God’s absolute providence and His transforming grace.
“Give what you command, and command what you will.” St. Augustine
Iohannes, that was actually pretty helpful. Thanks!
Dr. Chellis, “that conversation” which I was referring to was the ugly “discussion” in the comments of your prior posts where folks went after Michael Horton, etc. Sorry for being confusing.
This is a great conversation. I have always hoped to be able to have a conversation about justification with interlocutors who were aware of the diversity of views within Catholicism on soteriological matters. At any rate, I would suggest that, depending on what we mean exactly by justification, some Thomists (of the even more radically Augustinian variety like Banez and Zumel) said that justification was the root of our righteousness (even if they didn’t use that terminology). In Banez’s writings, “the justified” is one of his basic categories for different “states” of human beings. We have fallen man, the blessed, man in pure nature, man with original justice, etc., and man as justified. After the Fall, it is only someone in this state who can do anything righteous. Without being justified, one is incapable of doing anything even remotely pleasing to God.
When it comes to imputation v. infusion, he also has a very interesting perspective. He is concerned–as, if I may offer an interpretation of Banez here, many Reformed theologians are–that the infusion of grace is letting semi-Pelagianism in through the back door. We have received this grace in the past which now allows us to earn our salvation. He will not accept this view and disputes with some Thomists who may have. His argument is that the redeemed human being still depends at every moment upon the grace of God and the activity of the Holy Spirit in the soul. If this were not true, he says, why would the redeemed have to pray, “Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from evil?”
Furthermore, he is much more concerned about the Protestant view (as he interpreted it, probably badly given, well, a whole set of reasons!) of the non-imputation of sins than the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. He thinks the former takes away from the proclamation of John the Baptist that Jesus “takes away the sins of the world,” the words of the Psalmist that God has removed our transgressions as far as the east is from the west, etc. I’ve rarely seen this distinction between non-imputation and imputation discussed between Protestants and Catholics, though I certainly may have missed it.
Thomas Aquinas and all of his followers say that justification happens instantaneously, which at least complicates the standard view that Protestants see justification as an event and Catholics see it as a process.
Finally (just so this doesn’t become *too* unwieldy), Cajetan interprets James 2 in a very interesting fashion (after giving a very straightforward interpretations of Romans 3). James says that, as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead. This has often been interpreted by Catholics in such a way that the works are like the spirit which makes the body alive. Cajetan rejects this view. He argues that the spirit must be like breath, which isn’t (he argues) the source of life but simply the sign or evidence that the body is alive. This was said long after his encounter with Luther, so he is well aware of the implications.
At any rate, I’m sorry if all of this has been covered in the previous threads. But I’m very happy to see what’s going on here. I hope at least some of these thoughts are remotely helpful!
Pax.
If anything seems far-fetched, please just let me know, and I’d be glad to send any citations or other types of evidence. Also, this little message allows me to check the “Notify me” box…
Thanks, Matt, for those insightful comments. Cajetan’s reading of James sounds remarkable. I remember hearing the ‘breath’ interpretation taught during an OPC service. It is interesting that Cajetan (writing before Trent) also supposedly held similar views to Luther on the canon.
Imputation and non-imputation for the reformed are, I think, two sides of union with Christ. We start from an idea like the one St Thomas articulates here:
by Baptism a man is incorporated in the Passion and death of Christ, according to Rom. 6:8: “If we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ.” Hence it is clear that the Passion of Christ is communicated to every baptized person, so that he is healed just as if he himself had suffered and died. Now Christ’s Passion, as stated above, is a sufficient satisfaction for all the sins of all men. Consequently he who is baptized, is freed from the debt of all punishment due to him for his sins, just as if he himself had offered sufficient satisfaction for all his sins.
I haven’t the learning to be confident in this, but I think substantial differences arise only when we turn to consider post-baptismal sins.
That’s an excellent passage from Thomas that bears out the difficulties in being so comfortable about talking about Catholic vs. Protestant soteriological positions. There are substantive disagreements, but they are much messier and a much deeper level that even scholars in this field seem to think. But everyone here knows that already!
As for post-baptismal sins, there certainly were debates among Reformed theologians about “falling from grace”, but I don’t know the details. I’m not sure at what point this was ruled entirely out of bounds.
In my experience of this discussion, it is often suggested that, if you can “lose your salvation,” then this shows that salvation ultimately depends upon you. But this is clearly not the case, at least for the Thomist “stream” in Catholic theology. It goes without saying that Augustine has a strong view of predestination, but he also thinks that you can lose your salvation (again, sorry for repeating what is common knowledge). Then, we have Thomas’ view that perseverance is an unmerited gift. So, at the end of the day, it is all in God’s hands (not just on the “eternal” level of election but also in how it is worked out in history, a point at which John Calvin misinterprets Thomas, in fact).
But this idea that I mentioned above, based upon the Lord’s Prayer, shows that post-baptismal sins have just the opposite significance for Banez than the “common perception.” Instead of thinking that, since I can “lose my salvation,” I need to keep on working harder to avoid sin and do what’s right–and merit my salvation or something like that, Banez suggests that the lack of security for the justified (for lack of a better expression) shows that we must continually depend on the grace of God, praying, resting in His will (though he would obviously also say that we must “work out our own salvation with fear and trembling,” even if with a gloss!) Ultimately, even for the justified, it is only with God’s efficacious grace and the work of the Holy Spirit that we can avoid sin and do anything remotely worthy of God’s acceptance. He draws this out explicitly by saying that, if it was any different, the justified man who did not fall could “boast” in himself with respect to the justified man who fell. It is the elimination of any possibility of boasting that, it seems to me, is at the center of Banez’s soteriology.
But I might have completely missed what you were intending by the reference to post-baptismal sins, Iohannes. Sorry for rambling on here! Oh, by the way, thanks for your website. It has helped me a good number of times.
That was very helpful, thanks again. Efficacious grace certainly does complicate the whole quarrel, since differences become rather more technical once it is acknowledged by both sides. I will need to read more about Banez. St Augustine in his work on the Gift of Perseverance refers over and over again to that petition from the Lord’s Prayer, “and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil.” He cites it to show that perseverance itself is given by grace, and likewise cuts out any ground for boasting. It would not surprise me if as you say Calvin misread Aquinas; the Reformed seem not to have a good track record in understanding the saint. (Though there have been some exceptions, e.g. Zanchius was much influenced by Thomas.) Regarding insecurity and assurance, I have liked the balance Mozley showed, holding both in tension, as he does here.