Josiah Concept Ministries

It seems as though the audience favorite was Dinesh D’souza tonight.  The lanky scholar received thunderous applause after his speech on New Atheism.  D’souza had several tough acts to follow, including a very enlightening speech on the bodily Resurrection of Christ from Dr. William Lane Craig and a lecture on inerrancy of Scripture from Dr. Norman Geisler.

I have only one regret for this conference.  I probably won’t ever get the chance to do it again.  After all, how often do I run into William Lane Craig?

I wish I had challenged Dr. Craig’s view of Calvinism.  Dr. Craig fell into exactly the same trap that I describe in my post on predestination, only he runs into it with God’s sovereignty.  Dr. Craig assumes that the Calvinist and hyper-Calvinist views of human freedom are one in the same.  Dr. Craig affirms the Molinist view of God’s middle knowledge while attacking the Calvinist view of God’s sovereignty as deterministic.  While Dr. Craig affirms that Molinism and Calvinism are compatible, he does not do the compatibility any justice.

Molinism, in brief, states that God has three levels of knowledge.  God’s natural knowledge, stage one, is encompasses every world that is possible.  At stage 2, God’s middle knowledge, He knows all of the worlds that are plausible.  In other words, at this stage, God knows what His creatures will do when given a set of circumstances.  God’s free knowledge, at stage three, is the actual world that God chooses to create from the middle knowledge He has at stage 2.  In this way, His creatures are still free to choose but God has chosen their world for them, so He already knows what the choice is going to be.

Hyper-Calivinism, which Dr. Craig views incorrectly as orthodox Calvinism, views reprobation as a positive action on God’s part rather than a negative action.  Orthodox Calvinism says that God allows reprobates to suffer His wrath (as all of humanity deserves), while positively pursuing the elect with His irresistible grace.  Hyper-Calvinism, on the other hand, has God purposely bringing sin into the lives of the reprobates so that they will suffer eternal damnation.

Chapter IX of the Westminster Confession of Faith details human free will, which clearly states that human will is libertarian (as Dr. Craig affirms) and “. . . is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil” (WCF, IX:I).  But chapter IX:III takes into account Scriptural teaching that man’s free will is tainted with sin to such a degree that “a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself [for salvation]. . . .”

This sort of free will is exactly the view that Molinists have.  But Dr. Craig is no monergist when it comes to salvation, and that is his error.  He wishes to retain a synergistic view of salvation, so he has adopted a view that allows for synergism while retaining some of the vestiges of monergism.

Bottom line, it is still Pelagian in nature.

Dr. Craig really disagrees not with God’s sovereignty in election, but with total depravity.  Though he later stated that he affirmed it, I have my doubts that he affirms it in the way a proper Calvinist would.  He still believes that man can come to God apart from the unconditional election.  Dr. Craig believes in a logically untenable universal atonement, and rejects both irresistible grace and eternal security.  As I’ve stated before, all of these doctrines flow from the first point of Calvinism, Total Depravity.  Dr. Craig does not accept total depravity despite his statement to the contrary.  Total depravity simply does not allow for a synergistic view of salvation.

All that said, Unshakable Faith 2008 was a great event that I encourage readers to attend next year if they can.  The planners are already working tirelessly to put something even better together for next year.  My prayers will certainly be with them in their endeavors.

I’ve posted much on the topic of predestination lately. I have posted a general definition here, on its definite nature according to the counsel of God’s will here, and finally on the two-edged sword of double predestination here. The two primary objections to predestination are the hyper-Calvinist error of double predestination, and the modernist error of assuming our free will is greater than God’s will.

I have already considered the hyper-Calvinist error in my post on double predestination. Briefly, it assumes that God actively chooses to send one group of people to heaven and one group to hell. It sees God’s as taking a positive action on both sides of the coin–that He actively works sin in the reprobate’s life in order to send that person to hell while actively working good things in the elect’s life to send that person to heaven. No such action is necessary. God merely “passes over” the nonelect and takes no further action in that person’s life. That person will condemn himself to hell. Reprobation, therefore, is a negative action on God’s part.

The other error with predestination is more of a modern error. Modern theologies tend to place a greater emphasis on the human free will than the divine free will. This type of error assumes that our free will decisions can somehow limit God’s actions. Viewed correctly, we derive our free will from God’s decree. We are free, to be sure, but God is more free than we are.

The Westminster Confession of Faith spends a chapter on human free will. Chapter IX, paragraph 1 states “God has endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined good, or evil.” Paragraph 2 expounds on this will: “Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.”

Paragraph 3 reads:

Man, by his fall into a state of sin, has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto. (emphasis added)

It is important to remember that, according to the confession, man “has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation” (Rom 5:6, 8:7; cf. Jn 15:5). It is in this statement that we find no contradiction with John 3:16 or similar passages:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. (emphasis added)

Put together with “Man . . . has wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation,” we understand, finally, that apart from God’s grace, no one is going to believe in Him. This highlights our total dependence on God, which is something that modern theologies either downplay or forget altogether. Modern theologies would have God dependent upon man.

My own pastor has been teaching against predestination for several Sunday school sessions.  Regrettably, I have been unable to attend.  This past Sunday, he used 2 Peter 3:9 as the bullet proof text against predestination.  This verse reads:

The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.

The problem is that, based on the teaching that man’s will is now wholly unable to will and do any good, no one is going to reach that repentance that God desires us to reach.

In sum, it is easy to attack predestination when it is isolated from the rest of what Calvinism teaches.  But when one considers that systematic theology as a whole (the way that it is meant to be considered), it is much harder to put a hole in it.  At one point, it is easy.  But when considering all five points of Calvinism, the system becomes a unified theology that is the best way to understand Scripture.

My church attendance has been absolutely lousy. Normally, I work an opening shift on Sunday–which means that I go in at 6:00 am and I’m off at 4:00 pm. This is not a good Sunday work schedule for a church goer, since it means that I’m working right through the service.

This Sunday, however, I worked the opposite shift. My family and I arrived a little early, and Sunday School was still in session. Pastor Steve has been talking on predestination, one of my favorite topics, and I can’t attend because of my crazy work schedule. I have done two previous posts on the topic–one with a general definition and one speculating on God’s criteria for it.

The snippet of Sunday School I heard as I passed by the doors to the sanctuary this morning was the pastor arguing against this point based on Bible verses such as 2 Peter 3:9. The logic chain is this:

1. God wills that all will come to repentance (2 Pet 3:9)
2. Predestination requires that God choose some for heaven and others for hell
3. Therefore, predestination isn’t Biblical

Pastor Steve, however, has misunderstood Reformed theology. He assumes correctly that predestination is double.  However, he assumes further that both sides are positive actions on the part of God.  This is not so. God does not work to create unbelief in these people so they go to hell; rather these people condemn themselves through their sinful actions.

No one on planet earth deserves to go to heaven by God’s holy standards.  We all deserve punishment in hell. The foundation of unconditional election is the total depravity of mankind. Recall that man is utterly unable to will and do good–and that without God’s effectual calling, we are in such bondage to sin that we are dead in that sin (Eph 2:1-3). Recall also that no one seeks after God, there are none who do good, not even one (Rom 3:9-26). Our condition is not fixable by our own power; only the grace of God can fix this dilemma.

Absent God, we are dead in sin and will only be able to will and do evil. Eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge has corrupted the human will irrecoverably–this is the price that we all pay for Adam’s transgression.

With this, I know that my pastor would agree. He has said as much in many worship services. But he seems obsessed with the idea that human free will is somehow pleasing to God. This is not the case, by the clear teaching of the Bible. Human free will can only will and do evil, unless God steps in and changes it for us. We will never invite Him to do that, according to the Bible. That’s total depravity. So He has predestined some of us, and effectually calls those people to His service.

This much I’ve explained in my previous posts. What Pastor Steve misunderstands in the idea of a double predestination is that God somehow positively elects people to both heaven and hell. According to the Bible, that we all deserve hell. We have condemned ourselves to that fate with no help from God. The active will of God is selecting some humans to save from the inferno. Passively, he allows others to suffer that fate.

To assume that God elects some to heaven and effectually calls those people while electing others to hell and actively working to ensure that fate is hyper-Calvinism.  R.C. Sproul called it equal ultimacy, and rightly labeled it “scary.”  The truth is that God merely “passes over” some of humanity, leaving them to their own devices without His grace.  And that can only lead them to one place.

The point, however, is that God doesn’t actively choose some to heaven and actively send others to hell. We all deserve hell, but God, in His mercy, is choosing to rescue some of us in Christ. It is the reprobate who are getting what they deserve, and the elect who are getting what they don’t deserve.

A reader with the pseudonym Edge7 left a comment in regard to the brief section on the Limited Atonement in this post. This assumes that verses like 1 Timothy 2:3, 5 and 1 John 2:2 confound the Calvinist position that the Atonement saves only the elect. These verses, combined with John 3:16, seem to indicate that Christ died for all men.

I had no intent to write at length about the Limited Atonement. My friend TurretinFan already has an excellent post here, but that post only mentions verses such as those above in passing. So I will add some thoughts about the above verses and their use of “all.” Specifically, I will talk about the contextual limitations of the word “all.” An appropriate subtitle for this piece could be, “When ‘all’ doesn’t mean ‘all.’”

“All” in the case of these verses refer to “all of the elect.” Can I prove that? No. But I have already provided a logical defense of the Limited Atonement, which I will repeat. And I can provide examples from the Bible where “all” doesn’t really mean “all,” but is instead defined by a contextual limitation. Taken together, along with my friend TurretinFan’s article, I believe that will provide a convincing case for the Limited Atonement.

First, a universal atonement is logically flawed. If Christ’s sacrifice paid for all of the sins of mankind, then no one is going to Hell, ever. But we know that this is not the case. Some may say that Christ’s atonement is universal in its scope but only effectual for believers. I might be inclined to agree with that idea. The problem is that, even with this view, the atonement is still limited. It still doesn’t cover the sins of unbelievers.

Another way to look at atonement is in light of the Unforgivable Sin. This is not recognizing the very work of God when you have enough knowledge to do so. Put another way, it is rejecting God’s grace–or unbelief in Christ. Perhaps the atonement is universal except for this one sin. But, you see, even then it is still limited.  It still only covers the sins of people who believe in Christ.
Anyway you try to slice it, the atonement is limited.

What about the verses, such as those mentioned above, that seem to preach a universal atonement?  According to Got Questions Ministries:

How can we understand the paradox that occurs because the Bible teaches God intends that only the elect will be saved, yet on the other hand the Bible also unequivocally declares that God freely and sincerely offers salvation to everyone who will believe? (Ezekiel 33:11; Isaiah 45:22; 55:1; Matthew 11:28; 23:37; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 22:17) The solution to this paradox is simply an acknowledgment of all that the Bible teaches. 1) The call of the Gospel is universal in the sense that anybody that hears it and believes in it will be saved. 2) Because they are dead in their trespasses and sin, no one will believe the Gospel and respond in faith unless God first makes those who are dead in their trespasses and sins alive (Ephesians 2:1-5). The Bible teaches that “whosoever believes” will have eternal life and then explains why some believe and some don’t.

Many people will further argue that “all” always means “all.”  So it is necessary to look at some other uses of the word “all” in the gospels to see if “all” means “all,” always.

First, when the devil tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he “took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory” (Mt 4:8).  So, the devil showed Jesus every kingdom in the entire world?  Not even from the world’s tallest mountain could a person see every single kingdom in the entire world.  So “all” in this case doesn’t mean “all.”  No Christian should have a problem with that interpretation.

Second, we see in Mark 13:23 Jesus tells His disciples “I told you all things beforehand.”  Is Jesus indeed referring to “all things,” such as expanding pi to the nth digit and the inner workings of a supercomputer?  Or is He narrowing the context slightly, to the signs at the end of the age, of which He was just speaking?  I think even the most hardcore biblical literalist will agree that Jesus limits “all things” to the end of the age.

In Luke 1:3, the historian notes to Theophilus that he has followed “all things closely for some time past.”  Does “all things” in this verse mean that Luke is following every event that ever happened in the first century, or is the context limited again to things that Jesus has done?  Again, even a biblical literalist can agree with my interpretation that “all things” means “all things related to Christ” in this passage.

It is my contention that the same contextual limitations have been placed on phrases like “all” and “the world” when they refer to salvation.  In those verses, like the ones above, “all” doesn’t really mean “all,” it means “all of the elect” or “all of the believers.”  The Atonement, which could have been universal if that was what God had intended, is limited only to the elect, both logically and biblically.

Only by ripping verses like John 3:16 away from the rest of the teachings of Scripture could a person arrive at a universal atonement.  When considered together with the rest of the passages that teach about the atonement, the contextual limitation of “all” becomes quite apparent.

Now I should note that there are several passages in which any theologian will tell you that “all things” means “all things, everywhere, and always.”  For example, among other verses, John 3:35 says that “The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand.”  This would, indeed, mean everything in the world.  However, this is made clear by other passages of Scripture, in both the Old and the New Testaments, that everything on this planet will be under the Lordship of the Son.  We are not reading passages such as those in a vacuum, so why read passages like John 3:16 apart from everything else Scripture says about salvation?

I think that an obvious objection to predestination is that the election is, by its nature, unconditional. Most people take that to mean random or arbitrary. If that were so, then it logically leads to fatalism. You then end up with the following thought process:

Why go and preach the gospel as we are charged to do if God has already picked us out? Too many scriptural contradictions my friend. GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION. How many times must I point that out?

But predestination is anything but random or arbitrary. Glenn Miller has an excellent article that addresses the same topic here from a neutral perspective. I will use one of Miller’s quotes that come from a Calvinist perspective to illustrate the point that, according to Reformed theology, this predestination is anything but arbitrary. “Particular election is thus and so far not absolute, as though it were arbitrary: it rather has its moral ground (inconceivable of course to man) in God’s essentiality,” quotes Miller. Cross referencing this:

Although no cause outside God can be given on man’s side, as we warned you earlier, why this man rather than that is elect or reprobate, as Isaac rather than Ishmael, Jacob than Esau, since in themselves they were both equals and equally unworthy of election: still we must not think that on His side God had no reasons or causes for doing- - since the divine will always conspires with His wisdom and does nothing without reason or rashly; although these reasons and causes have not been revealed to us, and accordingly they neither ought to nor can be probed by us apart from His will.-And it is this also which the chief doctors of the Reformed Church are often repelling from themselves, when they are reproached with setting up here some absolute will of God. Firstly they say it is not absolute, because it includes means by which the appointed end is achieved ; next because God also does not lack just reasons for having acted thus or thus, although these are hidden from us. Thus CALVINUS says (De occults Dei proved. P-1013 statim in initio) : ” Although for me God’s will is the supreme cause, yet I everywhere teach, that where in His counsels and works no cause is apparent, it is yet hidden with Him, so that He has decreed nothing save justly and wisely. Therefore the triflings of the Scholastics on absolute power I not only repudiate but also detest, because they separate His righteousness from His rule.”

Finally:

This will or this decree of His we never sever from righteousness and true right reason, and as always most orderly, although we believe it to be inscrutable even for the very angels ; and accordingly we admire and adore it and refuse to recognise any other absolute will in God. (Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, Baker: 1950, p. 165)

Miller concludes:

This is very, very far from a cold, detached, arbitrary election of individuals…In the Reformed system–according to their classic documents–this decree of God in eternity past is characterized by reason, wisdom, justice, righteousness, non-rashness, and ‘gratuitous love towards us’…

What this means for our study is this: the Reformed doctrine of ‘unconditional election’ is NOT even close to being the same as ‘unCAUSED election’ or ‘ARBITRARY election’ . It affirms only that the causes/reasons are not grounded in the deeds of humans in time. There ARE reasons and causes, and these are wise, just, righteous–and unrevealed.

Ultimately, predestination is rooted in God’s love, which I stated in the previous article on this topic. Remember, we love because He first loved us (1 Jn 4:19).

This leads us to speculate on what the reasons for election might possibly be.  First, I believe that they are not grounded in what the elect person himself does or does not do.  But, that doesn’t eliminate the intriguing possibility that it may be grounded in what others do.  For example, God may choose someone on the basis of that person encountering a believer’s evangelism.  He may also choose someone on the basis of the prayers of others.

Why evangelize?  The reasons for election, as well as the elect themselves, are unrevealed to us.  God may choose someone on the basis of your act of evangelism toward that person.  I think that this is a reasonable proposition and a very good reason to continue efforts at evangelism.

When I first started studying Calvinism, I thought that the most controversial element of the TULIP was the “L”–Limited Atonement.  This is summed up in the Westminster Confession of Faith III.6:

Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only. (emphasis added)

But I’ve found that everyone believes in the Limited Atonement, whether they think they do or not.  A Universal Atonement is not just logically impossible, but outright cruel.  Think about it like this: if Christ died in atonement for the sins of all of mankind, then why does God still send people to Hell?  To what point and purpose must some people pay for their sins twice, once vicariously through Christ and then again for all eternity in Hell?

It makes no sense.  Aside from that, only John 3:16 stands in support of a Universal Atonement.  In nearly all other cases where the Atonement is mentioned in Scripture, the word “many” rather than “all” refers to those effectually called and saved.  Looking back at the Old Testament, both Daniel and Isaiah confirm this idea of an elect people, or “the many” (cf. Dan 9:27 and Is 53:11-12)  Scripture teaches, therefore, that only those who die in Christ are effectually saved by the Atonement.  Even non-Calvinist writers agree on this point.

The most controversial element of Calvinism is the doctrine of predestination, which the Confession says “is to be handled with special prudence and care” (III.8).  I found out why last night as I attempted to explain this doctrine to a friend over an Instant Message.  He was aghast that I believed in this doctrine, since (in his opinion) it takes away free will.

First, before I delve into some of the finer points of the misunderstood doctrine of predestination, I must affirm that, to my surprise, Calvinism does teach that mankind has free will.  I say “to my surprise” because I resisted Calvinism for so long for the sinful allure of open theism because of the question of free will.  I made the mistake of checking what the critics said of Calvinism instead of looking at Calvinist authors like R.C. Sproul wrote on the subject.  The Westminster Confession devotes an entire chapter to the free will of man.

In summary, the Confession states that God has placed a free will that is neither good nor evil within man.  Pre-Fall, that will was good and pleasing to God, but mutable so that man could fall from his state of grace.  Post-Fall, the will of man is dead in sin and unable to will and do any spiritual good.  That means that man is unable to save himself apart from the drawing of the Father to Christ.  Upon salvation, God regenerates the sinner and endows him with complete freedom to will and do spiritual good–but not perfectly, so he is still able to will and do evil.

Knowing that Calvinism affirmed the free will of man made it a lot easier for me to call myself a Calvinist, rather than just a reluctant Calvinist.  While waiting in the long line for the most recent Harry Potter book, I had the incredible fortune to read portions of Chosen by God by R.C. Sproul, which helped me see that predestination is the ultimate expression of God’s love and grace, not the expression of tyranny that many critics of Calvinism make it out to be. Read more »

TurretinFan has a great post on God’s wrath being understood side-by-side with His love rather than in opposition to it. This post fits well into my series on pain and atheists’ darkened understanding.  It lends some Reformed theology to my otherwise philosophical view.  I urge everyone to check it out if they have time. It’s short but profound.

While you’re over at TF’s site, you should read his rebuttals to objections on the limited atonement (the L in TULIP), as well as his definition here.  Nice theological reflections.  Real solid food (Heb 5:14).

I have consolidated, edited, and updated the preceding three parts of this series here. Since it has been a while in posting (mostly due to serious computer issues that have crippled my Internet access) it may help to familiarize yourself with what has come before this so that you will be up to date. As sometimes happens, in writing and researching this piece I have changed my mind about the necessity of no physical death prior to the Fall, I now believe that it is possible the Fall only brought on spiritual death. However, I am not at all convinced that God merely breathed a soul into Adam, who prior to that had evolved from the ground up (so to speak). I have made some changes in the articles to reflect this new conviction.

The seat of Mike’s argument is Romans 11, which he says is the model for God allowing changes to occur on their own without removing his meticulous sovereignty. Unfortunately, this is difficult to reconcile given its proximity to Romans 9, which is the premiere Bible passage teaching election/predestination and the Calvinist view of soteriology. The ultimate passage in meticulous sovereignty would never be placed right next to the ultimate passage for letting things go and coming back later to see how they worked out. Paul wrote the to the Romans his masterwork letter, and he plotted its structure far too carefully to let two such contradictory notions slide in side-by-side.

There is a way to reconcile these points with each other, and for that we need not go any further than our own logic. Read more »

Leave it to Tom in the Box News Network to make something this hilarious. This is even funnier when you realize who the caveman is.

I think I laughed the hardest at the line “You may already be pre-selected for a quote” than at anything else in this ad.

What makes TBNN so darned funny is the ability to come up with articles that sound real enough to make you wonder whether or not they really are supposed to be a theological satire site.

Take this one, for example.  Now this would be an easy verse to misread!  And given the fictional church’s background with feuds that last for a long time, coupled with the inability of previous pastors to make peace in the congregation, it would be easy for a person to conclude that this church is “called” to be an angry church.  A new cult is born, as Christian cults are often born, by snipping a single phrase from a single verse out of the context it resides within.

Jimmy Akin linked to this article on CNN’s website, with the desire to write a rebuttal. Akin called commentator Roland Martin an ex-Catholic, anti-Catholic bigot. In his short blog post, Akin asserts only that Martin can’t get his facts straight, with no further reply or rebuttal. If CNN won’t print the reply, hopefully he’ll post it on his blog. I’d be interested to see exactly what errors that Akin notices.

In the comments section of the blog post, a poster with the moniker Fr Bill P answers Akin detractor Jeb Protestant’s assertion that the Catholic Church doesn’t encourage Bible reading, and shows in the process that Catholics have no understanding of what sola scriptura actually means.

Well, Jeb, I was raised Baptist and was taught to use the Bible as a way of bashing Catholics and such. We were dissuaded from studying ‘troublesome passages’ like John 6, I Corithians 11, all of the Letter of James…and well pretty much everything that wasn’t written by St. Paul or was in the Apocolypse.

First Corinthians 11 and John 6 are often used as Catholic proof texts of the Eucharist. First Corinthians teaches a reverence for the Eucharist, and it teaches of Christ’s presence at the Lord’s Supper, however the concept of transubstantiation is not found there. It doesn’t teach the idea of re-presenting the sacrifice of Christ. It only teaches the Supper as a way to remember Christ–not change simple bread and wine into the literal body and the literal blood of Christ. That’s gross. Likewise, John 6 specifically teaches that Jesus is not here to give us physical food. He is here to give us spiritual food. John 6 is a symbolic passage, and makes sense in that way if studied next to the Jewish thought process of the time.

The letter of James talks quite a bit about action, which seems contradictory when placed next to Paul’s letters about salvation by grace alone through faith alone. Paul seems to be adamant that no action is required on our part, that salvation is God’s work and that we just can’t do anything but stay along for the ride. Then, here comes James with all his talk about taking action and doing something.

But there is no controversy. Paul said that we are saved by the grace of God first, and after that we will act to do good. James said that we are saved when we act on that grace and perform service pleasing with God. Which is true? Both! The infamous Internet apologist J.P. Holding wrote this essay on the semitic totality concept–that both statements are actually true at the same time and that both the grace of God combined with willing repentance and good works is actually what saves us. Making a decision means nothing without a corresponding action. Being saved, that is, thinking as a Christian should, will, according to Jewish thought, produce a corresponding change in behavior and is an inevitable fruit of true salvation.

Despite continuous citation of verses like Ephesians 2:8-10, Paul also stated the importance of good works in salvation (cf. Rom 6:1-2 and 12:1-2). Paul writes that sin means death for us, and asks the ultimate question: “Why continue to live in a way that leads to death?” It doesn’t make sense now, but it makes even less sense when read in light of the semitic totality concept.

More than likely, since Catholicism is based primarily on works (or sacraments) rather than any of the less famous Reformation solas, Fr. Bill is talking about James 5:14-15, which is a Catholic proof text of the sacrament of extreme unction (anointing of the sick). While the Scriptures certainly teach us to anoint the sick with oil and to pray over them for recovery, to define it as a sacrament (outward demonstration of God’s grace) isn’t scriptural. Got Questions Ministries provides a lengthier discussion here.

Fr. Bill is implying that ministers have no answers to these three Catholic proof texts. Therefore, by his reasoning, the Catholic Church must be correct in its ideas about transubstantiation and sacraments. For a lengthier discussion, see Got Questions Ministries’ answers to the sacraments here and to transubstantiation here.

Maybe you can answer me this as well, for a guy who things [sic] that the Bible can just picked up by anybody and read: How is it that there are 25,000+ strains of protestantism, all of whom claim to be reading the Scriptures correctly? Do we have such a low opinion of the Sacred Scriptures that we think anyone can pick it up and understand as if it were written by Dr. Suess? THe [sic] Bible is not a piece of literature to through personal biases and prooftexted [sic] to death. It wasn’t written in English. Why say that?

Twenty-five thousand? Is that the new number that Catholics are using for Protestant denominations? I’d love to see some documentation on that. Now, as for calling them “strains,” well, that’s just writing to purposely incite. Now, in my above statement, I believe it is very clear that I have treated the Scriptures with the reverence they deserve. I’m reading them by attempting to understand the thought process and culture of the time and place they were written. I also understand the limitations of any translation from one language to another. Anyone who wishes to practice sola scriptura effectively must have this knowledge, or be willing to learn it!

In regard to the typical Catholic argument that there are 25,000 varieties of Protestantism, does that imply that all Catholics are of one mind? Because even on Jimmy Akin’s website alone I see plenty of the Catholics disagreeing about not only Scriptural matters, but also interpretations of Church law and writings. If Catholics were of one mind, then organizations like Vox Populi, Married Priests NOW, and the Society of St. Pius X would never exist. [Please, no comments or e-mail that tell me that these are splinter groups that aren't true Catholics. You wouldn't accept a similar response from me about Fred Phelps.]

Fr. Bill, in his first paragraph, just threw out three Catholic proof texts. Now he is bashing Protestants for using proof texts of their pet theologies. That’s pretty inconsistent. But I suppose if I believed that only the Pope had the authority to infallibly define doctrine, then this argument would make sense.

Why he feels the need to mention that the Bible wasn’t written in English, I don’t know. That is irrelevant, especially in light of the fact that it is translated by folks who know much more than the rest of us do about the history and the context in which the Bible was written. They have also extensively studied the etymology of the languages that the Bible was written in. I trust the translations. Does Fr. Bill?

Some time ago, a person came here spouting off about how Catholics are wrong about the papacy and proceded [sic] to dress us down for not understanding our Greek (the original language of the NT) and cited the word Cephas as an example. Except Cephas is Aramiac, not Greek, and the arguemnt [sic] for ‘you are rock (Cephas/Petros) and on this rock (Cephas/petra) I build my church. An english [sic] speaker doesn’t understand the concpet [sic] of words having gender (believe me, I have taught spanish [sic]!) You wouldn’t nickname a male (Petros)by using a feminine word (Petra)even if the words had a slightly different ending. IN aramaic [sic], both are the same which only solidifies what Catholics believe.

Okay, first of all, the person who came on the blog and cited Cephas as an example of people not knowing Greek obviously didn’t do his homework. But I’m left to wonder a bit about Fr. Bill’s argumentation. He’s saying that (1) Jesus spoke Aramaic, not Greek; (2) the quote from Matthew 16:18 would therefore have been spoken in Aramaic originally; (3) words with gender in Greek would never be used to nickname a person of the opposite gender; (4) since the words are the same gender in Aramaic, it is possible that Jesus is nicknaming Peter in the Catholic way; therefore, (5) the Catholic case for this is solidified. But in Isaiah, the keys are only given to the Messiah, and there is no mention of Him passing them to an earthly successor. Further, the rest of the New Testament is firm on the fact that Jesus’ place was very unique (cf. Heb 4:14-5:10 and 1 Tim 2:5).

And, does your average reader know the significance of the Gospel placing the story in Ceseraea Philipi…where there is a large hill that essntially [sic] in a solid rock? Or does your average reader know the connection between this scripture passage and the one in Isaiah, and the historical significance of the keeper of the keys? NO, probably not. But it is OK for an average reader to look at this Scripture and get out of it whatever they think?

I think that this is a classic example of the Catholic thought that sola scriptura–scripture alone–is equivalent to “scripture in a vacuum.” No Protestant believes that, nor do we understand sola scriptura in this way. We who hold to sola scriptura believe that Scripture alone holds the only infallible source of faith and morals, and we do not use outside sources of either. However, we are only too happy to seek outside assistance with interpreting these Scriptures. We ascribe no infallibility to the interpreters the way that the Catholics do to the Pope.

Tim J, another JA.O regular, has this to say on authority to interpret:

I have believed now, for some years, that this authority is vested in the Church and especially in the Pope. If I call some teaching “out of bounds”, well, that doesn’t mean much… if the Pope says the same, it really MEANS something. In this way, He is the servant and protector of the word of God in a way you and I can never be.

Maybe someone can help me understand this. I have just said that I look for help in interpreting Scripture from friends and family and pastors. They have differing opinions of what the Scriptures say. I happen to read the Scriptures in a Calvinist light, while the rest of my family hates Calvinism. My pastor has a much more conservative view than the rest of us. I know two people who are King James Onlyists, and at least one insists that the AV 1611 is the only true Bible and that all of the other translations are corrupted tools of Satan–so fervent is this belief that it has caused him to lengthen his engagement to a wonderful girl so that they can further debate this issue.

Bottom line: we’re all human, just like the Pope. Why is his interpretation the only meaningful one?

Apostolic succession is the answer that most Catholics put forward. While they say that Peter was the first Pope, he obviously didn’t have the same powers and position as the Pope (such as papal infallibility, cf. Gal 2:11-14). In fact, it is Peter who teaches the priesthood of all believers (1 Pet 2:4-6)–which is in direct opposition to Roman Catholic theology!

Continuing now with Fr. Bill’s remarks:

The Scriptures need to be taken far more seriously and reverently than that! Maybe, just maybe, that is why the Catholic Church has not encouraged people to just pick a Bible and start reading without some serious study. The Sacred Scriptures are not some amorphous words that don’t have any centralized meaning…they are the self-communication of God with His people.

I agree, with one caveat. There is a plain meaning to most passages (e.g. Eph 2:8-10) that contradicts the Catholic teaching on the essentials of salvation. Wouldn’t the more logical reason for not wanting the general public to read the Bible be to keep them from discovering this fact?

Fr. Bill concludes:

Is this commentator a bigot? You’re damned straight he is! Catholic bashing is still the one true acceptable bias left. Considering that many protestant groups don’t even consider Catholics to be Christians, at least Catholic teaching will recognize that protestants are Christians.

Interesting that he wraps up by trying to turn the other cheek.  Earlier in the post, this guy said “strains” of Protestantism, which is language that is quite inflammatory.  I wonder if he can see the inconsistencies in his own position?