withallyourmind.net

Well… I had anticipated blogging a little more frequently since my last post, but life has kept me from it. Today, I arrived in San Diego for the Evangelical Theological Society/Evangelical Philosophical Society Annual Meeting. The Apologetics Conference I spoke of in my last post takes place each evening, starting tomorrow, while the day is spent listening to papers from evangelical scholars in philosophy and theology.

I arrived in San Diego after noon and made it to three excellent sessions today. Here’s a brief summary:

First, J. P. Moreland delivered a paper entitled, “How Evangelicals Became Over-Committed to the Bible and What can be Done about It.” One might misunderstand Moreland’s topic without having attended the session. In one sense, Evangelicals are under-committed to the Bible, yet, Moreland argues, they have over-committed to the Bible in making it the sole authority, or source of knowledge. This stands in contrast to the historical view which holds that the Bible is the ultimate authority or source of knowledge. This over-committment stems from a withdrawal from the broader world of ideas, surrendering the source of “real knowledge” to the hard sciences. Moreland’s call was for evangelicals to recover the use of right reason, natural law, experience, Creeds , and tradition as subordinate sources of knowledge.

I then heard an excellent paper by Dr. Angus J. L. Menuge of Concordia University Wisconsin called, “Socrates in Service to Christ: The Formation of an Apologist.” One never knows what to expect and is often misled by the Title of a Paper. I was pleasantly surprised that Menuge’s paper presented a study of Oxford University’s Socratic Club under the presidency of C. S. Lewis, 1942-1954. He asserts that the Socratic Club provides an ideal model for training Christians in apologetics. His paper was quite insightful.

Lastly, I attended a session in which Steven L. Porter of Talbot School of Theology presented a paper called, “What does a foundationalist theological methodology look like?” Porter first recounts how philosophical nonfoundationalism has led to a nonfoundational movement in theology. He then asks why a recent resurgence in philosophical foundationalism has not led to a corresponding surge in theological foundationalism. Finally, Porter provided a sketch of how three foundationalist theories (externalism, doxastic internalism, and nondoxastic internalism) affect theological methodology.

Tomorrow’s another day. I’ll see if I can provide another update then.

Michael Horton was asked what advice he might give to an evangelical who is considering becoming Catholic or Orthodox. I think his answer, found in this article, is right on:

Here’s how I would counsel such a person: Start with the gospel. The gospel creates and sustains the church, not the other way around. If the Evangelicalism familiar to you has been a constant stream of imperatives and moral exhortation, whether in rigid and legalistic or warm and friendly versions, the antidote is not to follow different rules for attaining justification, but a constant, life-long, unremitting immersion in the good news that Jesus Christ’s obedient life, death, and resurrection are sufficient even to save miserable Christians.

That is what the Reformation was all about, and it is why we need another one, even in Protestantism as much as in any other tradition. If our salvation depends on anything done by us or even within us by the Spirit, then our situation is hopeless.

Despite their own differences, Rome and Orthodoxy are at one in telling us in their official doctrinal statements that this message is wrong, not just in emphasis, but in the doctrine itself. According to Roman Catholic teaching, it is a serious error, heresy, in fact, to believe that we are accepted by God in Jesus Christ apart from any virtuous activity on our part and while we remain in ourselves actually sinful. Our meritorious activity must play some part in our final justification, according to both Rome and Orthodoxy.

One might hear more of God’s grace in the Mass or in John of Damascus, The Orthodox Faith than in a month of Sundays in many Protestant churches today, even some of our own churches that are confessionally bound to teach otherwise. But in Rome’s official teaching, not to mention in its popular piety, the doctrine that we are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, apart from any inherent righteousness, remains anathema.

HT: Justin Taylor at Between Two Worlds

Here is a useful website called the Linked Word Project which links the text of the Bible to the Hebrew and Greek words with detailed information on the word from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and the Theological Word Book of the Old Testament.

HT: Smart Christian

With this post (Part 9), I conclude a series comparing the teachings of evangelicals and Roman Catholics, exploring both areas of agreement and disagreement. For ease of access, here is Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, and Part 8. Today, I examine one last area in which evangelicals and Roman Catholics disagree, the doctrine of purgatory, and then offer a few concluding remarks.

The doctrine of purgatory and its related issues (the treasury of merit, prayers for the dead and good works for the dead), accepted by Catholics, is rejected by evangelicals. The Council of Trent pronounced excommunication on anyone who rejects this dogma. Catholic teaching staalsotes that purgatory is a place for believers, those who will be ultimately saved, and is a place of purification that must take place before one enters heaven. Catholic sources admit that this doctrine is not taught explicitly in Scripture, but neither is it to be found implicitly. Purgatory is rejected by evangelicals because it is a denial of the sufficiency of the cross. It is also contrary to the immediacy of heaven after death, as taught in Scripture (2 Corinthians 5:8). The concept of a treasury of merit (from saints who have done more good deeds than necessary for their own salvation) is also contrary to the all-sufficiency of Christ’s atonement. Romans 8:1 declares, “There is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.” Most importantly, salvation is not merited at all; it is a free gift of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). The whole idea of indulgences is seen as distasteful and repugnant (2 Peter 1:18-19). Regarding prayers for the dead, once again, there is no scriptural support. Likewise, there is no biblical support for praying to the saints. God alone is the proper object of our prayers. Prayer is a form of worship, and only God should be worshiped (Exodus 20:3). The Old Testament condemns attempting to communicate with the dead as necromancy. This practice also practically denies the mediatorship of Christ and is an insult to the intercession of the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion, this series illustrates that despite a number of substantial areas of agreement between Catholics and evangelicals, any hope of ecclesiastical unity is probably rendered impossible by the doctrinal differences between the two groups. This does not need imply that Catholics and evangelicals are enemies. There are many areas of common spiritual heritage and many practical areas of social and moral cooperation. Protestants and evangelicals face the common enemy of secularism and the moral issues which flow from that worldview on such topics as abortion and homosexuality. The significance of our joint doctrinal and moral beliefs and the significant evils of secularism and relativism encourage cooperation, perhaps even demands such. J. Daryl Charles noted:

The real cleavage in Christendom today is… between biblical orthodox and heterodox worldviews. Even the most reactionary of Protestant fundamentalists has more in common with Cardinal John O’Connor and John Paul II than with Joan Campbell and John Spong.

This is Part 8 of my series discussing the relationship between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I have pointed out many areas of agreement and am now continuing to show areas of disagreement. Today, I quickly discuss doctrinal differences on ecclesiology and Mariology.

Regarding ecclesiology, the Catholic teaching is that the church is not merely an invisible mystical body, but also a visible organization on earth headquartered in Rome. Evangelicals disagree in several areas, including the visibility, unity, priestly authority, and constituency of the Church. The dogma that the Catholic Church is the one true visible church united under the Pope and that the church has priestly power to transform the bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ and the special power to forgive sins is unsupported in Scripture and also lacks any kind of unanimity among the church Fathers. Catholic attempts to use scripture to support these teachings wrench the texts from their contexts and offer no real support. These irrevocable teachings of the Roman Church are unacceptable to evangelicals.

MacKenzie and Geisler claim:

For many Protestants, Mariology and Mariolatry are almost synonymous.

However, evangelicals can and do affirm that she is the most blessed among women, that Christ was conceived in her while she was a virgin, and that by virtue of that conception she is, in a sense, “the Mother of God.” However, the Catholic dogmas of the perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, sinlessness, bodily assumption, mediatorship, and the veneration of Mary and her images are rejected. The belief of Mary’s perpetual virginity is not a huge stumbling-block to evangelicals, but is rejected by most due to clear references in Scripture to his brothers and sisters, as well as the implication of Matthew 1:25 that Mary had sexual relations after the birth of Christ (among other arguments). In 1854, Pope Pius IX infallibly pronounced the dogma that Mary, from the moment of her conception was preserved free from all stain of original sin. Evangelicals reject this teaching on the basis that the three main texts (Gen 3:15, Luke 1:28, and Luke 1:41) used by Catholics to support this dogma fail to support it. The teaching that Mary was free from personal sin during her whole life is not only unsupported in Scripture, but is opposed in Scripture. In fact, in Luke 1:46, Mary affirmed her need for a Savior. Roman Catholic dogmas, over time, reveal a progressive glorification of Mary, to the point where she is virtually deified by many. Catholicism teaches that she was bodily assumed into heaven and venerated as Mediatrix (a mediator of grace) and “Queen of Heaven.” Catholics admit that there is no direct scriptural proof of this doctrine, but affirm its possibility and probability. Evangelicals declare no such probability exists. The Mediatorship of Mary conflicts with the Protestant belief in the uniqueness of Christ’s atonement. Scriptural support is totally lacking.

The most repugnant aspect of Mariology for evangelicals is the veneration of Mary. Nothing in Scripture supports the claim that Mary should be venerated above all creatures but below God or that prayers should be offered to her. Mary was not exalted above all women, but among all women. The Bible clearly forbids the veneration of any creature. We are to worship only God. Mariolatry is idolatry.

In my next post, I will discuss purgatory and provide a few closing comments on this series.

This is Part 7 of a continuing series discussing areas of agreement and disagreement between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Most of the information for this series of blogs is taken from the excellent book Roman Catholics and Evangelicals by Norman Geisler and Ralph MacKenzie. Today, I briefly outline the differences in two areas: Justification and the sacraments. (I, once again, remind you that I am unable to give a defense of the Catholic teaching in each area due to the restraints of the blogging medium. This entire series is a greatly compacted review of the arguments presented in the aforementioned book. If you have an interest in this area, I would highly recommend the book.)

Catholics and Protestants differ strongly over the doctrine of justification. Catholics assert the primacy and necessity of grace, but evangelicals hold to the exclusivity of grace (sola gratia) apart from any good works. While Catholics hold to the necessity of faith (at least in adults) for justification, evangelicals hold to the doctrine of sola fide, faith alone is necessary for justification. The Council of Trent proclaimed that …

… by his good works the justified man really acquires a claim to supernatural reward from God.

Evangelicals disagree. We are saved by grace alone through faith alone, “meritorious works” are a nonsensical to evangelicals. They reject any teaching which makes works a condition of eternal life such as that found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church…

… the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful.

Romans 6:23 clearly opposes a salvation derived from grace plus works. One cannot work for a gift. Making works of sanctification a condition of ultimate salvation is misled. Grace and works are as incompatible as the concept of unmerited merit. This teaching confuses working for salvation and working from salvation (the Protestant view). It is similar to the error confronted by Paul in Galatians. Paul argues that justification and sanctification both come by grace through faith alone. Works are not a condition of justification, but a consequence of it. The evangelical teaching is that man is not made righteous in justification (Catholic teaching), but is accounted and accepted as righteous at justification (extrinsic, not intrinsic justification).

Roman Catholicism views the sacraments as causes of grace, not merely “signs” of grace. Catholics teach that sacraments bestow grace objectively, irrespective of whether there is subjective confirmation and without the mediation of fiducial faith. These sacraments (seven in all) are held to be necessary for salvation. Protestants respond to Catholic dogma by asserting that there is a glaring lack of scriptural or historical support for the number of sacraments being seven. The Catholic teaching that a sacrament causes grace ex opere operato (by the work that has been worked) is a mystical, almost magical view of sacraments.

Catholics hold that the sacrament of baptism confers the grace of justification. Evangelicals argue that baptismal regeneration appears to be contrary to grace and is in conflict with the need for faith. In regard to the sacrament of the Eucharist (communion), Catholic dogma teaches transubstantiation, that the wine and bread are literally transformed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Since, this is held to be the case, it is appropriate to actually worship the consecrated elements as God. Evangelicals argue that to consider the wine and bread to be the actual body and blood of Christ is unscriptural and impossible to defend. It is idolatrous to worship the “host” as this violates the command to worship God under a physical image. The view of the mass as a sacrifice in which Christ is sacrificed afresh is contrary to the scriptural teaching that Christ was sacrificed once and for all, negating the need for further sacrifice (Hebrews 10:12-14).

Next, even more differences between evangelicals and Roman Catholics.

This is Part 6 of a continuing series on the relationship between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I am now discussing areas of doctrinal conflict between these two groups. In my last post, I discussed the disagreement over the inclusion of the Apocrypha into the canon of Scripture by Roman Catholics. Today, I will briefly consider the evangelical doctrine of sola scriptura and the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal infallibility.

Regarding the limits of the infallible authority of Scripture, the Reformation stressed two principles: sola Scriptura (the Bible alone) and sola fide (faith alone). Evangelicals affirm these principles and Catholics deny them (when appropriately defined). Sola Scriptura, to evangelicals, means that the Bible is a direct revelation from God, it is the sufficient and final written authority of God, it is clear, and that Scripture interprets Scripture. The Council of Trent emphatically proclaimed that the Bible alone is not sufficient for faith and morals; tradition is also needed. The Church must provide infallible guidance in interpreting the Bible. Importantly, contrary to the claims of the Catholic Church, evangelicals claim no infallible teaching magisterium is necessary to interpret Scripture.

Evangelicals reject the Catholic teaching on the grounds that the Bible itself teaches sola Scriptura. If not explicitly and formally, at least implicitly and informally (e.g., see 2 Timothy 3:16-17). All apostolic “traditions”, allegedly required by the Roman Catholic Church, may be found in the Bible and we need not search outside the Scripture for additional guidance. By way of clarification, Protestants do not hold that we can learn nothing from sources outside Scripture, only that these outside authorities should not be afforded infallible status.

Evangelicals also reject the Catholic claim that the church “determined” the canon of scripture, arguing that the church merely discovered the canon God had determined by inspiring certain books. This question of authority is a crucial difference between Catholics and Protestants.

The Catholic dogma of the infallibility of the Pope, pronounced at Vatican I in 1870 is a major area of disagreement between Catholics and evangelicals. Roman Catholic scholars claim that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, as the official interpreter of faith and morals. Evangelicals argue that the texts used to support this dogma fall far short of their intended use by Catholics (see Matthew 16:18, John 11:49-52 and John 21:15-17). All the apostles and prophets, not just Peter, serve as the foundation of the Church, Christ himself being the cornerstone. Nowhere in scripture is Peter given the unique authority among the apostles claimed by Catholic teaching. There is certainly no reference to any alleged infallibility possessed by Peter. In fact, Peter at one time misled believers and had to be rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11). Additionally, whatever apostolic powers Peter possessed, it is clear they were not passed on to others after his death, since to be an apostle one must have been an eyewitness of the resurrected Christ and show certain “signs of an apostle” (2 Corinthians 2:12).

There are other theological problems with papal infallibility, such as the problem of heretical popes. The Catholic claim that we need infallible guidance to understand the infallible revelation is problematic, as well. How is an infallible interpretation any better than the infallible revelation? Evangelicals claim that the essential truths of Scripture can be understood by any literate person. When Catholics counter that a Papal error was not made when the Pope was speaking ex cathedra, evangelicals assert that Papal infallibility dies the “death of a thousand qualifications” and becomes just as fallible as any human teaching when we cannot know when the pope actually speaks ex cathedra.

Next, more important differences in evangelical and Catholic teaching.

This is Part 5 of a series examining the relationship of evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Thus far I have given a brief history and covered several areas in which there is general agreement between evangelical teaching and Roman Catholic doctrines. At this point, I will spend several posts discussing important differences in the two groups of believers. These differences are not insignificant.

Evangelicals reject the immaculate conception of Mary, her bodily assumption, her role as co-redemptrix, the veneration of Mary and other saints, prayers to Mary and the saints, the infallibility of the pope, purgatory, the inspiration and canonicity of the Apocrypha, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the worship of the transformed Host, the sacerdotal powers of the Catholic priesthood, and the necessity of works to obtain eternal life. These beliefs are all held by the Roman Catholic Church and stand in the way of any kind of unity between evangelicals and Catholics. I will not be able, due to time restraints, to provide the Catholic defense for each of these, but I will provide the reasons for the evangelical rejection of each.

Today - a quick look at the canon of Scripture. Seven books and four parts of books were pronounced as part of the canon in 1546 at the Council of Trent. These books are otherwise known as the Apocrypha by evangelicals. That same council pronounced excommunication on anyone who rejects them and fails to accept their canonical status. The acceptance of the Apocrypha has significant doctrinal implications since support for prayers for the dead, and hence, purgatory is derived from these books.

There are several reasons why these books should be rejected.
1. These should be rejected since they fail to meet the criteria of “propheticity,” meaning written by a prophet. No apocryphal books even claim to be written by a prophet.
2. These books were never considered to be canonical by the Jewish Bible.
3. No apocryphal book is ever cited in an authoritative sense by another canonical book.
4. Additionally, there is a long line of historical support for the non-canonical status of the Apocrypha.
a. Early Jewish teachers such as Philo and Josephus give no evidence that they should be considered canonical.
b. Jesus and the New Testament writers never quoted the Apocrypha as Scripture.
c. The Jewish scholars at Jamnia (A.D. 90) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the divinely inspired Jewish canon.
d. No canonical list or general council of the first four centuries of Christian history accepted the Apocrypha as inspired.
e. Many early church fathers spoke out against these books.
f. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, explicitly rejected them as part of the canon.
g. Certain Reformation period Catholic scholars as well as reformers such as Luther and Calvin rejected them as canonical.

Next post, more important disagreements.

This is the fourth installment of a series of posts concerning the relationship between evangelicals and Roman Catholics. I’ve been discussing areas of agreement between these two groups. Today, I conclude this portion on agreement by examining the doctrines of ecclesiology, ethics, and eschatology. Once again, I stress how brief I must be. Certainly, there is much that could be said to further detail just how much agreement may be found on each topic, as well as, showing areas of disagreement even within these broad areas of agreement.

Despite some major differences on the subject of ecclesiology (The Church), there are also similarities. There are similarities regarding the foundation, nature, and function of the Church. Both parties believe the church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ. Both see continuity between the Old Testament people of God and the New Testament. Both, also, hold that there is an invisible dimension to the church. Catholics and evangelicals embrace the proclamation of the creeds that the church is one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.

Regarding ethics, there is much common ground. The ethics of both are absolutistic, being anchored in the nature and will of God. Protestants and Catholics embrace the ethical teachings of Augustine and Aquinas. The supreme ethical law is that of love – first of all, love of God for His own sake, and then love of others. Both traditions have held to some natural law theory, embracing universals while rejecting utilitarianism. The moral law is seen to flow from God’s will and is rooted in His nature. It was not just Augustine and Aquinas who held to natural law, protestant thinkers like John Calvin also held to natural law theory, as well. The four cardinal virtues of prudence, courage, temperance, and justice, and the three theological virtues of faith, hope, and love are valued by both alike. In summary, Catholics and evangelicals hold to a common ethical core of absolute moral principles rooted in the nature and will of God, both embracing natural revelation and special revelation as instructive for ethical living.

Both groups, also, hold to some common beliefs in the area of eschatology, the study of last things. Eschatology is often divided by theologians into individual eschatology and cosmic eschatology. In the domain of individual eschatology, both embrace the judgment which comes after death and both embrace a doctrine which includes heaven and hell. In the realm of cosmic eschatology, evangelicals agree with Catholics in holding to the reality of the second coming of Christ. They also agree that there will come a general resurrection of the dead followed by a general judgment at the end of time. Believers will enjoy eternal bliss while unbelievers suffer eternal condemnation. Both believe that this present world will be destroyed and there will be a new heaven and a new earth.

This post concludes a brief treatment of the areas of agreement, including many Christian fundamentals: The Trinity, the verbal inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the creation and fall of humanity, Christ’s unique atonement for our sins, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the necessity of God’s grace for salvation, the existence of heaven and hell, and the second coming of Christ. However, there is yet much disagreement between Catholics and evangelicals, and that disagreement is not insignificant. To that I turn in my next post.

This is Part 3 of a continuing series examining the relationship of Roman Catholics and evangelicals. My primary source for this series is the excellent book by Ralph MacKenzie and Normal Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals. In my first post, I laid out a very brief history of that relationship. In Part 2, I took a look at two areas in which these two groups can find much common ground, the teaching on revelation and doctrine concerning God. Today, I continue to look at areas in which Roman Catholics and evangelicals agree, specifically in regard to the doctine of man, Christology, and soteriology.

Catholics and evangelicals hold to a common understanding of the origin, nature, and fall of humanity. Both agree that man was created by God, in God’s image and likeness. Both also agree on the immortality of man and his duty to God, his fellow man, and God’s creation. There is accord on the dualistic nature of man; that he is not just a physical substance, but also is a non-physical substance, or a soul. Both camps believe in the fall of man and in original sin. Not only that, but evangelicals and Catholics agree on the final remedy for the situation, namely, the merit of the one mediator, Jesus Christ. Roman Catholic Church teaching states:

We believe that in Adam all have sinned. From this it follows that on account of the one initial offence committed by him human nature, which is common to all men, is reduced to that condition in which it must suffer the consequences of that fall.

Evangelicals would agree with this summary regarding man. Both groups also agree on the fundamental dignity of human life founded in the Imago Dei.

Regarding the doctrine of Christ, scriptural teaching and the early creeds unify both Catholic and evangelical theology. Both theologies embrace the Christian tradition of Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas regarding Christ: Jesus Christ is God in the flesh. Jesus is not part god and part man, but he became truly man while remaining truly God. Christ was not a divine being who only appeared to be human, nor was he a mere human who became divine. Christ was one Person in whom the divine and human natures were hypostatically united. Both Catholics and evangelicals also affirm the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ.

There is also a common core of beliefs regarding the work of Christ in salvation (soteriology). First, both Catholics and evangelicals agree that salvation is historical, that is, it is effected through historical divine revelation and not by mere religious practices or the gaining of wisdom. Salvation is also held to be moral and spiritual by both groups. It involves deliverance from sin, guilt, death, bondage, and the judgment. There is a consensus that there is an eschatological aspect of salvation, a still-to-be-fulfilled future perspective. Importantly, evangelicals and Catholics hold that our initial justification is unmerited.

In my next post, I present more areas of agreement.