Semi-Pelagian or Synergism?

I was asked to respond to an article posted by a Calvinist in CDF: 

Is Roman Catholicism Semi-Pelagian?

Brief Definitions:
Pelagianism:
A heresy in which salvation is by Man's effort alone and God's grace is only present through giving us an example to follow

sw: Not really the topic we're discussing.

Semi-Pelagianism:
1) a heresy in which grace is not necessary for the initial stage of salvation and will be imparted after the person has come to faith in Christ

sw: I'm OK with that definition, it's in agreement with what I posted earlier - though I'd use "justification" instead of "salvation" there.

2) (small letters) any system which has pelagian tendencies, i.e. ascribing to salvation any effort on Man's part

sw: That's getting a bit too lose with the terminology.  Semipelagianism is more accurately the first definition, and it can be the second one too so long as we're talking the initial stage of justification.

Synergism:
Man and God working together towards the individual's salvation

sw: This is the more accurate terminology to describe the Catholic view.  Protestants, especially Calvinists, will see this as heresy, but in reality (as we shall see later) this synergy is actually quite scriptural and straight out of the Pauline epistles which Calvinists like to run to.

Monergism:
Salvation being the work of God alone

sw: Monergism is the opposite of what we're discussing, and is heretically wrong.  The version of "Semi-Pelagianism" which this article refers to is more in line with "Synergism" than that which is defined as "Semi-Pelagianism."  To embrace Monergism to the exclusion of Synergism is where this becomes heretical.  Certainly God does work in the salvation of Man, but God does not work alone in this (see below).
 

Article:

Regarding Roman Catholic soteriology, it has been shown in the article 'Differences between Pelagianism, its derivatives and Christianity' that Roman Catholic soteriology is aberrational and heretical. Informed Christians from the Reformation onwards have referred to Roman Catholic soteriology as semi-pelagian. Is this statement true, especially since Rome in its early stages have denounced the error of Semi-Pelagianism as heresy in the Council of Orange ⁽¹⁾?

sw: The statement is not true because, as we shall see, Semi-Pelagian does not mean what the anti-Catholics say it means.  They didn't define the heresy and defend the Church against it for it came about 1000 years before there was a cult called "Reformed" and it was the Catholic Church which defined the term, thus we rightfully reject the novel definition of the "Reformed."

To answer this question, we must first define our terms. As stated above, Semi-Pelagianism was denounced as a heresy by the incipient Roman Catholic church during the Council of Orange of 529 AD. In this sense, Roman Catholicism should be distinct from Semi Pelagianism. Analysis of their respective soteriologies does confirm that they are different from each other. Whereas Semi-Pelagianism maintain that a person can initially come to God without God's grace, Roman Catholicism does say that God's grace must operate initially in order for a person to be saved. Thus, in this matter, it is true that Roman Catholicism ≠ Semi-Pelagianism.

sw: This is Semi-Pelagianism, and yes, it is not Catholicism.

However, there is another sense in which the term semi-pelagianism is used. Using Pelagianism as the root word, semi-pelagianism implies a theology that is partly Pelagian in its essence. It is this definition in which the term semi-pelagianism is used by most Christians in reference to Rome.

sw:  The term "most Christians" is a bit deceiving, since "most Christians" are Catholics.  That being said, this miniority group of Christians have taken the name of defined heresy and redefined it to suit their needs.  

The essence of Pelagianism is the idea of Man working out his salvation.

sw: The "essence" of Pelagianism is that Man brings himself to salvation - without the assistance of God.

Thus, anything which could be legitimately called semi-pelagian would of necessity involve Man playing some part in his/her salvation. This would thus be known as synergism, where God and Man work together for the latter's salvation. Thus, in Reformed circles, semi-pelagianism has a broader meaning of any system of theology that is synergistic in nature, as opposed to the more rigid definition of the heresy of Semi-Pelagianism which was specifically condemned by the Council of Orange and by both Christianity and Roman Catholicism alike.

sw: The definition used here does fit Synergism - and not Semi-Pelagianism.  Many non-Catholics have jumped upon the term Semi-Pelagian and wrongly use it - and even when corrected (or admit it themselves, as even this article has just done) they go back to defending their position that Catholicism is Semi-Pelagian.  They are simply wrong and apparently with too much pride to admit it.  Where Synergism may fit, Semi-Pelagianism certainly does not.

Using this broader definition of semi-pelagianism, Roman Catholicism IS semi-pelagian. This is because in Roman Catholicism, Man needs to cooperate with God to work out his salvation.

sw: This "broader definition" is not accurately Semi-Pelagianism - it is Synergism.  Words mean things.  It was the Catholic Church which defined what Semi-Pelagianism is - not Protestants over 1000 years later. 

This is seen in the 6th Session of the Council of Trent, On Justification ⁽²⁾:

CANON IV.- If anyone says that man's free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God's call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.

Also, this could be clearly seen in CHAPTER V of the same session of the Council of Trent: On the necessity, in adults, of preparation for Justification, and whence it proceeds

The Synod furthermore declares, that in adults, the beginning of the said Justification is to be derived from the prevenient grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that is to say, from His vocation, whereby, without any merits existing on their parts, they are called; that so they, who by sins were alienated from God, may be disposed through His quickening and assisting grace, to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and co-operating with that said grace: in such sort that, while God touches the heart of man by the illumination of the Holy Ghost, neither is man himself utterly without doing anything while he receives that inspiration, forasmuch as he is also able to reject it; yet is he not able, by his own free will, without the grace of God, to move himself unto justice in His sight. Whence, when it is said in the sacred writings: Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you, we are admonished of our liberty; and when we answer; Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted, we confess that we are prevented by the grace of God. (Emphasis added)

From this, we can see that according to Rome, Man must cooperate with God in order for him/her to be saved, therefore part of salvation is the work of Man in cooperating with God. This is made all the more evident when Rome declares that the grace of God is resistible ('... he is able to reject it...'), which implies that it is the part which is cooperating is the autonomous human will.

sw: Catholicism does not deny, and in fact does embrace the scriptural truth that we must "work out our salvation in fear and trembling," (Phil 2:12), that we cannot treat our salvation any differently than St. Paul who said "But I chastise my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway" (1 Cor. 9:27). If we don't DO something and cooperate with God's Grace - we stand in danger of being that castaway, even as St. Paul feared becoming.

This is synergism and Roman Catholicism is therefore semi-pelagian in the broad usage of the word. Therefore, websites which deny this is therefore either ignorant or misinformed about the usage of the word in Christian Reformed circles, whether willfully or not.

sw: OK, the key here is "the usage of the word in Christian Reformed circles."  It really then has nothing to do with the REAL meaning of the terms here - but the redefinition of Semi-Pelagian by those who call themselves "Reformed."  Synergism is not Semi-Pelagianism.  Equivocating the terms and expected us to just accept it is just insulting to the intelligence of those who know that words mean things - not to mention that these "Reformed" are redefining OUR definition of Semi-Pelagian in order for them to use this "label" in debate to make it sound like Catholics on one hand rejected the heresy, but on the other embrace it, but this redefinition of terms isn't going to fly amongst those who actually understand the terminology.

sw: Jimmy Akin has an excellent article on this, and I recommend the whole article⁽³⁾, but let me excerpt a little here:

This is denounced as the evil doctrine of "synergism" because it claims that we work (-ergo) with (syn-) God—a horrifyingly blasphemous statement to Calvinist ears. which is ironic because the New Testament several times uses the very term "synergize" (Gk, sunergeo) with respect to God's action and ours. I'm sorry, but the Bible is a synergist book because it in the most literal sense possible it uses synergist language. You can't denounce the language of synergism without denouncing the language of the Bible.
...
(Quoting Protestant theologian, Dale Moody) "The best translation of Romans 8:28 that we have noted . . . says God 'cooperates for good with those who love God and are called according to his purpose.' This is just right, the way the Greek reads, but this understanding has been denounced as synergism. The Greek word for 'work with' is synergei, and from this word synergism was formed. It is strange indeed to hear people declaring they believe in the verbal inspiration of Holy Scripture, yet at the same time they denounce this verb! They seem to find an increase in zeal as they butt their heads in an obstinate way against the very language of the Bible. What really do they mean when they speak of the inspiration and authority of Scripture, if the words of the Bible are forbidden?" (The Word of Truth, 342)

However, Paul goes beyond Romans 8:28 into a verse that would make a Calvinist even more uncomfortable:

"Working together with (sunergountes) him, then, we entreat you not to accept the grace of God in vain" (2 Corinthians 6:1).

Here we have not only the language of men working with God (as opposed to God working with men), but Paul adds to this the exhortation not to accept the grace of God in vain, which means that the grace of God can be accepted in vain. In order to do a full exegesis of this we would have to show what grace is being talked about, whether it is the offer or the reality of salvation, but no matter what the answer to that question is, this verse says something that Calvinist language is not going to like, because it means it is either possible to accept the grace of salvation at one time and then have it to be vain or it means that it is possible to accept the grace of the offer of salvation and have it be vain because you fail to cooperate with the offer, which means that this grace is not irresistible. Of course, Calvinists have long differentiated between the internal and the external call of God, but in order to keep from talking about God's grace being resistible (and thus potentially "failing," "being frustrated," or "made vain"), but the point is that even if this verse did refer to the external call of God, it would still show that some of God's graces can be accepted but then made vain.

...

Besides using the verb "synergize" (sunergeo, the verb used in different forms in the three preceding verses) Paul even uses the more "shocking" term "synergist" (sunergos) or "co-laborer" with respect to himself and God, saying: "For we are God's fellow workers (sunergoi); you are God's field, God's building" (1 Corinthians 3:9).

sw:  In closing, Synergism - which the Calvinist rejects, is precisely what Scripture tells us to embrace!  God's Grace precedes any cooperation with God, for we cannot cooperate with that which He has not first given to us.  We cannot achieve or attain Grace on our own (Pelagianism) it must come from God and then we can have this synergy (Synergism) with Him and His Grace.

 

References
[1] Canons of the Council of Orange http://americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/councils/orange_canons.htm.
[2] The Canons and Decrees of the sacred and ecumenical Council of Trent: The sixth session. Taken from http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/TRENT/trent6.htm

(links changed to the ACTS website)

Adding my reference to Jimmy Akin:
[3] Akin, Jimmy, "Resisting and Cooperating with God" http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/COOPERAT.htm   also here: http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/cooperat.htm

 

The TULIP Revisited

I happened to stumble across a blog posting from over 3 years ago at Beggars All which pits my response to Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article against who is right or wrong.  

It would be nice if someone is going to publish something about an article written by someone else that they would at least post a comment in the original blog to let the original author(s) know the existence of such "responses."  I'm sure this is a bit like "old news" to Mr. Swan and Co., but I just saw this - so I am responding now.   Mr. Akin and/or Mr. Swan can easily find articles I've written on my blog which directly concern them by using the "Label" of their name.  There are, as of this posting, now 4 articles involving Mr. Akin and 19 involving Mr. Swan.

For context, here are the links to the original articles:

Jimmy Akin's "Tiptoe Through the TULIP" article:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

My response to Jimmy Akin:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2009/01/akins-tiptoe-through-tulip-response.html

And here is the link to Mr. Swan's:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2009/01/here-was-interesting-exchange-by-jimmy.html

The content of Swan's post is this:

Friday, January 23, 2009

Here was an interesting exchange by Jimmy Akin and Scott Windsor on how to deal with Calvinists that swim the Tiber.

Jimmy Akin proposes Calvinists converting to Rome can keep "TULIP" if they understand it this way:

A Thomistic TULIP

In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version of TULIP
T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
U = Unconditional election
L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate his understanding of predestination and grace to become Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his understanding of perseverance.

Scott Windsor's approach:

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as Akin's here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they now KNOW to be the Truth. Let's not "tiptoe through TULIP," let's just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

Hmm... let's see...which one is the correct approach?

Posted by James Swan at 6:50 AM

I stand by what I said.  Encouraging any sort of embracing of Calvin's false doctrines is dangerous, in my opinion.  It is dangerous to one's soul!  If one can be encouraged to accept that this "Thomistic TULIP" is an acceptable approach, then they may end up complacent to remain in Calvin's error.  Why go through all the struggles and strife of conversion, the rejection by family and friends alike, and then hold on to something because it's not so different?    In reality, Calvinism is quite different from Catholicism.  I would also encourage the reader to go back and read my article (which includes Akin's and then responds) to get the bigger picture of what I was saying and not merely my closing remark.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

What Is Wrong with White

Roman Unity: If it Promotes Mother Rome, It's All Good

So goes the headline from James White's blog from January 6th, whereas that's a bit hyperbolic and not entirely true - let's take a look at White's blog:

01/06/2010 - James White
My first moderated, public debate was on the subject of Roman Catholicism. It took place in August of 1990. Since I have a few decades of experience now,

sw: If anyone is counting, White states he began in "August of 1990" and since it is just January of 2010, that's not even two complete decades and "a few" would indicate more than two, generally at least three or more. So White begins his statements with an exaggeration of the truth [or perhaps it just seems to him to be more than a couple decades, nonetheless, he would be better served to have stated "nearly two decades of experience"].

I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at one particular fact over and over again: Rome's apologists just don't seem driven to work hard in their field.

sw: I used to shake my head in disbelief at how White constantly attacks the persons he confronts before he even tries to deal with what they have said - but I don't anymore, it's so commonplace in reading his "debates" and bloggings that it can hardly be disbelieved anymore.

Further, they clearly observe the "throw everything including the kitchen sink in defense of Rome, no matter how objectively bad it is on a scholarly level."

sw: (Yawn) more personal attacking - though this attack is on Catholic apologists as a whole, the attack is against each of them (us) personally as if we all observe the methodology he imputes upon us all.

Illustration: today Patrick Madrid took a shot at "Calvinists" in general on his blog. For someone who has yet, to my knowledge, to engage a Calvinist on the relevant subjects (of course I would, Patrick, let's set it up!) in debate,

sw: White seems to think that "debates" are the best way to engage someone on a given subject. Whereas I can see some advantage to debating - often what happens is both sides walk away considering they have "won" the debate and little is actually accomplished. A more "engaging" discussion would be an "online/written debate." I would be more than willing to engage White in such - and have several times in the past - but White apparently doesn't like the fact that in such a written debate he's put on a more equal ground with his opponent. Little tricks that can sway or influence someone in a live debate don't work in a written debate. The fact that he's been caught in error MANY times in written debate is likely another reason he avoids such and prefers to go the testosterone way, mano y mano, because - as I will freely admit, he's quite talented in manipulating a live debate.

sw: Illustration - in 2001 White challenged me to a "live debate/discussion" on his "Dividing Line" webcast and I accepted. Previous to his challenge I had been discussing John 6 and the Eucharist and he challenged me to this discussion, I assumed, based upon those John 6 and the Eucharist discussions that when White proposed the topic of John 6 that indeed we'd discuss the same and I accepted. I prepared for a debate/discussion on the Eucharist and John 6 - he opened with a 5 minute opening statement which didn't even touch upon the Eucharistic meanings in John 6! Instead - he turned it into a Calvinstic discussion on predestination, etc. That was my first "live" debate, and I admit that I wasn't skilled enough at the time to refocus the discussion back to what actually prompted the challenge - and that's a tactic that he'd have a hard time pulling on me now. Anyway, the point is - he has talent in debating someone live, I do not deny that. My point is that being persuasive in a live debate does not necessarily equate to an accurate promotion of the truth. As for the 2001 encounter, in the "live" session I do not feel there was a true "winner" at all. White threw a curve ball at me, discussing something I was not prepared to discuss - but even though I don't believe I "won" that exchange, I did hold my own in answering him (and his callers, who went off on even more tangents). What IS clear from that exchange is in the non-live/written exchange, White abandoned the debate leaving many challenges unanswered (see link below).

I find his surface-level retorts somewhat amusing. But what is amazing are the three links he provides for, what he calls, "quite able" refutations of Calvinism. Two are ancient articles Jimmy Akin wrote years and years ago, neither of which provide much in the way of substance.

sw: The objective reader here can see that White is not attacking ANY of the substance from Jimmy Akin's articles - and he admits there is SOME substance to those articles just not much in his not-so-humble opinion. White's only accusation against Akin's articles is the AGE of the articles! Truth, I'm sure the objective reader will affirm, is timeless so with the lack of ANY substance to White's presentation - it should be summarily dismissed.

And the third is to Dave Armstrong's series on Calvin! Now, with all due respect to ol' Dave Armstrong, he is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome. Serious readers in the field realize that while Dave may stumble over a thoughtful argument once in a while, it is always to be found somewhere else. He simply does not produce original argumentation of any kind, and clearly does not understand the responses that have been offered to him over and over again.

sw: Again we see that White merely attacks the person of Dave Armstrong. "Ol' Dave Armstrong," he says "is one of the clearest examples of why past canon law prohibited laymen from engaging in public disputation in defense of Rome." What White doesn't do is a) present us with the former canon law (as if that would apply today anyway) or b) any "examples" from Armstrongs literally dozens of references. No, it seems it was much easier for White to engage in character assassination (again) instead of any substantial argument against either Armstrong or Madrid. I fully expect, if he chooses to respond to me at all (which he pretty much avoids any direct responses to me anymore after I've been able to demonstrate and document his errors on too many occassions) that he will attempt the same with me, character assassination and no substantial arguments. I would be quite engaged if he were to prove me wrong on this point and actually deal with some substance.

So, we find Madrid once again pulling out of mothballs surface-level materials that are nearly two decades old, and promoting Dave Armstrong as "quite able" refutations of Reformed theology.

sw: Actually, what we find is White once again participating in nothing more than the apologetics of personal destruction. He has not engaged a single amount of substance from either Madrid, Armstrong or Akin but merely engaged in personal attacks.

One is truly left wondering if these men really think this kind of material has real weight and meaning, or if they are just too bored to do serious work in the field. I will leave it to the reader to decide. 
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3716

sw: I am glad White leaves it to the reader to decide, for the objective reader will have to question who is really getting bored here and merely resorting to personal attacks and not engaging ANY substance AT ALL in this character assassination piece. And now, so I am not accused of the same thing I accuse White of, let's look at what White is critiquing and see if there's some substance there or not, shall we?

Here's Patrick Madrid's Blog:

Things are getting a little fidgety over in Calvinland, at least within the Sovereign Calvinist embassy to Free Republic. The Great Reformed Ping List is underway again, complete with some obligatory tub-thumping and chest-beating about their enemies' "anthropomorphic rantings" and how their solas are being "mightily assailed," etc., etc.

sw: Well, not a lot of substance there, but he does refer to "The Great Reformed Ping List" which is being "revitalised" on FreeRepublic. In fact that's pretty much the whole of Madrid's blog is just a comment that this GRPL is being reactivated - and he takes a bit of interest or "fun" in watching them banter about...

It's kind of fun to watch (bad Latin grammar and all), but still, it's sad to see good people become so hopelessly entangled in the errors of the Calvinist religious system (some of which are quite ably refuted here, here, and here).

sw: Now I grant you, Madrid does not get into examples of the "errors of the Calvinist religious system" here - but he does refer us to Armstrong and Akin. If White were doing a thorough refutation then he would have at least directly engaged those articles (Armstrong's is more of a list of articles) with at least some clear examples of where Armstrong and Akin have falsely represented Calvinism. White doesn't do that though, he merely attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. So yes, let the reader decide - the objective reader can surely see who appears to be "bored" and who actually thinks it's "kind of fun to watch" such discourses. Madrid closes with a quote from the Free Republic forum:

Exurge, Calvinisti, et judica causam tuam...


Arise (some older mss still read 'Swarm'), O Calvinists, and plead your cause. The doctrines of grace are mightily assailed by those who would proclaim with their father, “I will be like the Most High.” Set forth the biblical case for a sovereign God who is jealous for His glory. Disallow through disputation (and lampooning when needed) the damnable errors of those who have refashioned the great sola doctrines into a salvation-helper gospel that exalts the fallen will of man.
From every corner, in every thread exalt the right of God to do whatsoever He pleaseth. Be not dismayed by persistent anthropocentric rantings. Blessed are you when they revile you for the sake of the truth. Happy are ye when the Servetus card is played and the strawmen are paraded before you for He who is enthroned in heaven reigns. http://patrickmadrid.blogspot.com/2010/01/calvinists-are-swarming-over-on-free.html

sw: So, where Madrid was only observing the "rennovation" of the GRPL and call to "swarm" the Calvinists, actually quoting something from that forum, White only attacks the persons of Madrid, Armstrong and Akin. Well, yes, he did attack the AGE of Akin's arguments - but again "age" has no relevance to truth. White does not assail ANY substance in Akin's articles. Oh, and if White is ready to really engage me yet, there are several unanswered challenges to him here:

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/jrw
 
sw: I fully expect that if there is ANY answer to this at all, it will be scoffing, character assassination upon me and a complete avoidance of ANY substance at all. Will White deal with the fact that he misused Scripture in regard to 1 Cor. 3:10-15? Will White finally deal with the, at least 29 enumerated errors from our first live "debate" from his Dividing Line webcast? Again, I would be humbly pleased to be proven wrong in my prediction here and find that White actually respectfully responded to the challenges, or even ONE of the challenges before him. So yes, let the reader decide - and wait to see what sort of response, if any, is forthcoming.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- Slight edits made today, and I noticed the "white boxes" in the 1 Cor. 3:10-15 article have disappeared and will have to fix those later.

Akin's Tiptoe Through the TULIP (a response)

The recent challenge is over what Jimmy Akin has posted as
a Catholic or Thomist view of John Calvin's TULIP. Since this
is the case, I will now respond to Akin's article:

> A Tiptoe Through TULIP
> by James Akin

Akin's words will be preceded by ">" and mine will not be.
Jimmy's original article can be found here:
http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/tulip.htm

This response of mine can also be found in the
Catholic Debate Forum (click here).

> Predestination means many things to many people. All
> Christian churches believe in some form of predestination,
> because the Bible uses the term, but what predestination
> is and how it works are in dispute.
>
> In Protestant circles there are two major camps when it
> comes to predestination: Calvinism and Arminianism.
> Calvinism is common in Presbyterian, Reformed, and a
> few Baptist churches. Arminianism is common in
> Methodist, Pentecostal, and most Baptist churches.
>
> Even though Calvinists are a minority among Protestants
> today, their view has had enormous influence, especially
> in this country. This is partly because the Puritans and
> the Baptists who helped found America were Calvinists,
> but it is also because Calvinism traditionally has been
> found among the more intellectual Protestants, giving it
> a special influence.

I would beg to differ here. Calvinism does not have the
"enormous influence" which Akin attributes to them. They
ARE a minority. What they DO have an influence over is in
the apologetics community - for they tend to be among the
most vocal/verbose and as such many Catholic apologists
put an undo amount of focus in responding to them and I
am guilty of this too, largely due to the influence I put
myself into after I converted to the Catholic Faith. Prior to
my conversion I had scarcely even heard of John Calvin and
Calvinists - my upbringing was Lutheran, which is definitely
NOT Calvinist.

> Calvinists claim God predestines people by choosing which
> individuals will accept his offer of salvation. These people
> are known as "the elect". They are not saved against their
> will. It is because God has chosen them that they will desire
> to come to him in the first place. Those who are not among
> the elect, "the reprobate," will not desire to come to God,
> will not do so, and thus will not be saved.
>
> Arminians claim God predestines people by pronouncing
> (but not deciding) who will accept salvation. He makes this
> pronouncement using his foreknowledge, which enables
> him to see what people will do in the future. He sees who
> will choose to accept his offer of salvation. The people who
> God knows will repent are those he regards as his "elect"
> or "chosen" people.

The only point I would add here is that God is outside of what
WE consider to be "time." God is eternal. God always was,
is, and will be. What WE perceive as "future" - God just sees
for God just IS. He is I AM.

> The debate between Calvinists and Arminians is often fierce.
> These groups frequently accuse each other of teaching a
> false gospel, at least on a theoretical level, although on a
> practical level there is little difference between the two
> since bonow about these subjects: First, Catholics are often
> attacked by Calvinists who misunderstand the Catholic
> position on these issues. Second, Catholics often
> misunderstand the teaching of their own Church on
> predestination. Third, in recent years there has been a large
> number of Calvinists who have become Catholics. By
> understanding Calvinism better, Catholics can help more
> Calvinists make the jump.

I would add: Many Calvinist arguments against Catholics are
based in #2 - where they are responding to Catholics who do
not understand the Catholic stance on predestination.

> Total depravity
>
> Despite its name, the doctrine of total depravity does not
> mean men are always and only sinful. Calvinists do not
> think we are as sinful as we possibly could be. They
> claim our free will has been injured by original sin to the
> point that, unless God gives us special grace, we cannot
> free ourselves from sin and choose to serve God in love.
> We might choose to serve him out of fear, but not out of
> unselfish love.

True Calvinists would not say we "choose" anything of our
own Free Will.

> What would a Catholic think of this teaching? While he
> would not use the term "total depravity" to describe the
> doctrine, he would actually agree with it. The accepted
> Catholic teaching is that, because of the fall of Adam,
> man cannot do anything out of supernatural love unless
> God gives him special grace to do so.

Or, we can base our opinion on Scripture:
Isa 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our
righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as
a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.

> (St.) Thomas Aquinas declared that special grace is
> necessary for man to do any supernaturally good act, to
> love God, to fulfill God's commandments, to gain eternal
> life, to prepare for salvation, to rise from sin, to avoid sin,
> and to persevere.

Amen.

> Unconditional election
>
> The doctrine of unconditional election means God does
> not base his choice (election) of certain individuals on
> anything other than his own good will. God chooses
> whomever he pleases and passes over the rest. The
> ones God chooses will desire to come to him, will
> accept his offer of salvation, and will do so precisely
> because he has chosen them.

In short, in Calvinism men are puppets. Calvinists
don't like to hear this, but that's the reality. In their
invented system, if God chooses you - you have no
real choice, you WILL choose to follow God, period.
If God DOESN'T choose you - then you are lost,
damned to Hell for all eternity.

> To show that God positively chooses, rather than
> merely foresees, those who will come to him, Calvinists
> cite passages such as Romans 9:15-18, which says,
> "[The Lord] says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on
> whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on
> whom I have compassion.' So it depends not upon
> man's will or exertion, but upon God's mercy.... So
> then he has mercy upon whomever he wills, and he
> hardens the heart of whomever he wills."
>
> What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly
> is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation,
> but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even
> some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine
> and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.

Speaking for myself, I have long considered myself to
be a Thomist - but I do not agree with unconditional
election.

> Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his
> goodness in men: in respect to those whom he
> predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them;
> and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by
> means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the
> reason why God elects some and rejects others....
> Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates
> others has no reason except the divine will. Hence
> Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he
> draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish
> to err.'"

With all due respect to St. Augustine, Scripture tells
us that ALL are drawn! John 12:32 states that when
Jesus is lifted up, He will draw "all men" to Him.

> Although a Catholic may agree with unconditional
> election, he may not affirm "double-predestination," a
> doctrine Calvinists often infer from it. This teaching
> claims that in addition to electing some people to
> salvation God also sends others to damnation.
>
> The alternative to double-predestination is to say that
> while God predestines some people, he simply passes
> over the remainder. They will not come to God, but it is
> because of their inherent sin, not because God damns
> them. This is the doctrine of passive reprobation, which
> Aquinas taught.

Or the wiser approach might be to not try to figure out the
Mind of God so much. A couple facts are clear, man
stands condemned by Original Sin. Without the grace of
God, NO man can be saved. Then when we couple these
facts with the statement from John 12:32 - we know that
"all men" are drawn - thus those who do NOT come to
Him are the ones who failed. God has not failed to
redeem the world. My position is also confirmed in what
Mr. Akin quotes from the Council of Trent:

> The Council of Trent stated, "If anyone says that it is
> not in the power of man to make his ways evil, but that
> God produces the evil as well as the good works, not
> only by permission, but also properly and of himself,
> so that the betrayal of Judas is no less his own proper
> work than the vocation of Paul, let him be anathema....
> If anyone shall say that the grace of justification is
> attained by those only who are predestined unto life,
> but that all others, who are called, are called indeed,
> but do not receive grace, as if they are by divine
> power predestined to evil, let him be anathema."

> Limited Atonement
>
> Calvinists believe the atonement is limited, that Christ
> offered it for some men but not for all. They claim
> Christ died only for the elect. To prove this they cite
> verses which say Christ died for his sheep
> (John 10:11), for his friends (John 15:13-14a), and for
> the Church (Acts 20:28, Eph. 5:25).
>
> One cannot use these verses to prove Christ died
> only for the elect. A person may be said to have given
> himself for one person or group without denying that
> he gave himself for others as well. Biblical proof of this
> principle is found in Galatians 2:20, where Paul says
> that Christ "loved me and gave himself for me," not at
> all implying that Christ did not also give himself for
> other people. That Christ is said to have given himself
> in a special way for his sheep, his friends, or the
> Church cannot be used to prove Christ did not also
> give himself for all men in a different way.
>
> The Bible maintains that there is a sense in which
> Christ died for all men. John 4:42 describes Christ as
> "the Savior of the world," and 1 John 2:2 states that
> Christ "is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours
> only but also for the whole world." 1 Timothy 4:10
> describes God as "the Savior of all men, especially
> of those who believe." These passages, as well as
> the official teaching of the Church, require the
> Catholic to affirm that Christ died to atone for all men.

And as I referred to earlier, John 12:32 states that when
Jesus is lifted up, He will draw ALL MEN to Him. The
case for limited atonement is just non-existent.

> Aquinas stated, "Christ's passion was not only a
> sufficient but a superabundant atonement for the sins
> of the human race; according to 1 John 2:2, 'He is
> the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only,
> but also for those of the whole world.'"
>
> This is not to say there is no sense in which
> limitation may be ascribed to the atonement. While
> the grace it provided is sufficient to pay for the sins
> of all men, this grace is not made efficacious (put
> into effect) in the case of everyone. One may say
> that although the sufficiency of the atonement is
> not limited, its efficiency is limited. This is something
> everyone who believes in hell must acknowledge
> because, if the atonement was made efficacious for
> everyone, then no one would end up in hell.

Amen.

> The difference between the atonement's sufficiency
> and its efficiency accounts for Paul's statement that
> God is "the Savior of all men, especially those who
> believe." God is the Savior of all men because he
> arranged a sacrifice sufficient for all men. He is the
> Savior of those who believe in a special and superior
> sense because these have the sacrifice made
> efficacious for them. According to Aquinas, "[Christ]
> is the propitiation for our sins, efficaciously for
> some, but sufficiently for all, because the price of
> his blood is sufficient for the salvation of all; but it
> has its effect only in the elect."

Agreed.

> A Catholic also may say that, in going to the cross,
> Christ intended to make salvation possible for all
> men, but he did not intend to make salvation actual
> for all men--otherwise we would have to say that
> Christ went to the cross intending that all men
> would end up in heaven. This is clearly not the case.
> A Catholic therefore may say that the atonement is
> limited in efficacy, if not in sufficiency, and that God
> intended it to be this way. While a Catholic could
> not say that the atonement was limited in that it
> was made only for the elect, he could say that the
> atonement was limited in that God only intended it
> to be efficacious for the elect (although he intended
> it to be sufficient for all).

While I agree with the essence of what Akin says here,
I do not feel the need to be drawn into accepting the
terms of Calvinism at all. God is not limited, period.

> Irresistible Grace
>
> Calvinists teach that when God gives a person the
> grace that enables him to come to salvation, the
> person always responds and never rejects this grace.
> For this reason many have called this the doctrine of
> irresistible grace.

Can anyone tell me how the "I" is really any different
from the "U" in TULIP? Both speak to the inability of
man to play any role in the economy of salvation.
They are both statements of predestination. It seems
to me someone just wanted to make sure all the letters
in the acronym were used! With unconditional election
you're either of the elect - or not. With irresistible
grace, if you're given the grace you can't refuse it, but
if you're not given the grace, there's no way to get it.
Both the U and the I pretty much destroy the TRUE
Gospel we are given in Scripture.

> This designation has the drawback of making it sound
> as though God forces people against their will to
> come to him (like a policeman shouting, "Resistance
> is useless! Throw down your weapons and surrender!")

Or if you're a Sci-Fi fan, like the Borg saying, "Resistance
is futile, you will be assimilated."

> The designation also sounds unbiblical, since Scripture
> indicates grace can be resisted. In Acts 7:51 Stephen
> tells the Sanhedrin, "You always resist the Holy Spirit!"

Amen!

> For this reason many Calvinists are displeased with the
> phrase "irresistible grace." Some have proposed alternatives.
> Loraine Boettner, perhaps best known to readers of
> This Rock as the author of the wildly inaccurate
> Roman Catholicism, prefers "efficacious grace."

But then it would be "TULEP" and that just doesn't work! (grin)

> The idea is that God's enabling grace is intrinsically
> efficacious, so it always produces salvation.
>
> This is the principal issue between Thomists and Molinists.
> Thomists claim this enabling grace is intrinsically efficacious;
> by its very nature, because of the kind of grace it is, it always
> produces the effect of salvation. Molinists claim God's
> enabling grace is only sufficient and is made efficacious by
> man's free choice rather than by the nature of the grace itself.
> For this reason Molinists say that enabling grace is
> extrinsically efficacious rather than intrinsically efficacious.

And that is one reason I consider myself to be a Thomist!

> A Catholic can agree with the idea that enabling grace is
> intrinsically efficacious and, consequently, that all who
> receive this grace will repent and come to God. Aquinas
> taught, "God's intention cannot fail... Hence if God
> intends, while moving it, that the one whose heart he
> moves should attain to grace, he will infallibly attain to it,
> according to John 6:45, 'Everyone that has heard and
> learned from the Father comes to me.'" Catholics must
> say that, while God may give efficacious grace only to
> some, he gives sufficient grace to all. This is presupposed
> by the fact that he intended the atonement to be sufficient
> for all.

Well, I would say ALL grace from God is efficacious, but not
all will choose to RECEIVE that grace. There is no grace
from God which would NOT be efficacious, it is rather silly
to consider such, in my humble opinion.

> Vatican II stated, "[S]ince Christ died for all men, and
> since the ultimate calling of man is in fact one and divine,
> we ought to believe that the Holy Spirit in a manner known
> only to God offers to every man the possibility of being
> associated with this paschal mystery."

Amen!

> Perseverance of the saints
>
> Calvinists teach that if a person enters a state of grace
> he never will leave it but will persevere to the end of life.
> This doctrine is normally called the perseverance of the
> saints. All those who are at any time saints (in a state
> of sanctifying grace, to use Catholic terminology) will
> remain so forever. No matter what trials they face, they
> will always persevere, so their salvation is eternally
> secure.
>
> Analogies are used to support this teaching. Calvinists
> point out that when we become Christians we become
> God's children. They infer that, just as a child's position
> in the family is secure, our position in God's family is
> secure. A father would not kick his son out, so God will
> not kick us out.
>
> This reasoning is faulty. The analogy does not prove
> what it is supposed to. Children do not have "eternal
> security" in their families. First, they can be disowned.
> Second, even if a father would not kick anyone out, a
> child can leave the house on his own, disown his
> parents, and sever all ties with the family. Third,
> children can die; we, as God's children, can die
> spiritual deaths after we have been spiritually "born
> again."
>
> Calvinists also use Bible passages to teach
> perseverance of the saints. The chief ones are
> John 6:37-39, 10:27-29, and Romans 8:35-39. The
> Calvinist interpretation of these passages takes them
> out of context, and there are numerous other
> exegetical problems with their interpretation.

And I might add, perhaps the best example against the
doctrine of perseverance of saints is the story of the
Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). The Prodigal was
considered to be "dead" by the father, but upon his
return the father considered him alive again.

> Calvinists assume perseverance of the saints is
> entailed by the idea of predestination. If one is
> predestined to be saved, does it not follow he must
> persevere to the end?

The argument is based in the presupposition that the
Calvinist view of predestination in the first place is
correct - which it is not.

> This involves a confusion about what people are
> predestined to: Is it predestination to initial salvation
> or final salvation? The two are not the same. A
> person might be predestined to one, but this does
> not mean he is predestined necessarily to the other.
> One must define which kind of predestination is
> being discussed.

Well, I would not even give them these two types of
salvation. Salvation is the prize, in the words of St.
Paul, at the end of the race.

> If one is talking about predestination to initial salvation,
> then the fact that a person will come to God does not
> of itself mean he will stay with God. If one is talking
> about predestination to final salvation, then a
> predestined person will stay with God, but this does
> not mean the predestined are the only ones who
> experience initial salvation. Some might genuinely
> come to God (because they were predestined to
> initial salvation) and then genuinely leave (because
> they were not predestined to final salvation). Either
> way, predestination to initial salvation does not entail
> predestination to final salvation.

Again, this whole concept of "initial salvation" I would not
agree to. I would call that "initial grace" or "initial
justification" but not "salvation."

> There is no reason why a person cannot be
> predestined to "believe for a while" but "in time of
> temptation fall away" (Luke 8:13).

Amen.

> A Catholic must affirm that there are people who
> experience initial salvation and who do not go on
> to final salvation, but he is free to hold to a form of
> perseverance of the saints. The question is how
> one defines the term "saints"--in the Calvinist way,
> as all those who ever enter a state of sanctifying
> grace, or in a more Catholic way, as those who
> will go on to have their sanctification (their
> "saintification") completed. If one defines "saint"
> in the latter sense, a Catholic may believe in
> perseverance of the saints, since a person
> predestined to final salvation must by definition
> persevere to the end. Catholics even have a special
> name for the grace God gives these people: "the
> gift of final perseverance."
>
> The Church formally teaches that there is a gift of
> final perseverance. [Aquinas (and even Molina) said
> this grace always ensures that a person will
> persevere. Aquinas said, "Predestination [to final
> salvation] most certainly and infallibly takes effect."
> But not all who come to God receive this grace.
>
> Aquinas said the gift of final perseverance is "the
> abiding in good to the end of life. In order to have
> this perseverance man...needs the divine
> assistance guiding and guarding him against the
> attacks of the passions...[A]fter anyone has been
> justified by grace, he still needs to beseech God
> for the aforesaid gift of perseverance, that he may
> be kept from evil till the end of life. For to many
> grace is given to whom perseverance in grace is
> not give."

I like St. Thomas' approach!

> The idea that a person can be predestined to come
> to God yet not be predestined to stay the course
> may be new to Calvinists and may sound strange
> to them, but it did not sound strange to Augustine,
> Aquinas, or even Luther. Calvinists frequently cite
> these men as "Calvinists before Calvin." While they
> did hold high views of predestination, they did not
> draw Calvin's inference that all who are ever saved
> are predestined to remain in grace. Instead, their
> faith was informed by the biblical teaching that some
> who enter the sphere of grace go on to leave it.

Agreed.

> If one defines "saint" as one who will have his
> "saintification" completed, a Catholic can say he
> believes in a "perseverance of the saints" (all and
> only the people predestined to be saints will
> persevere). But because of the historic associations
> of the phrase it is advisable to make some change
> in it to avoid confusing the Thomist and Calvinist
> understandings of perseverance. Since in Catholic
> theology those who will persevere are called "the
> predestined" or "the elect," one might replace
> "perseverance of the saints" with "perseverance of
> the predestined" or, better, with "perseverance of
> the elect."

Or, as St. Thomas said, those who have received the
gift of perseverance.

> A Thomistic TULIP
>
> In view of this all, we might propose a Thomist version
> of TULIP:
> T = Total inability (to please God without special grace)
> U = Unconditional election
> L = Limited intent (for the atonement's efficacy)
> I = Intrinsically efficacious grace (for salvation)
> P = Perseverance of the elect (until the end of life).

> There are other ways to construct a Thomist version of
> TULIP, of course, but the fact there is even one way
> demonstrates that a Calvinist would not have to repudiate
> his understanding of predestination and grace to become
> Catholic. He simply would have to do greater justice to
> the teaching of Scripture and would have to refine his
> understanding of perseverance.

That is well and good, but the criticism of using their terminology
still exists (as with my initial article which did much the same as
Akin's here does). If one is to convert to the True Church, then
why hang on to errors of the past at all? When one converts, they
need to RENOUNCE their past - and EMBRACE that which they
now KNOW to be the Truth. Let's not "tiptoe through TULIP," let's
just crush the TULIP so they can move on and know the Truth.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Jimmy Akin on Sola Fide

(This posting is the result of a challenge from the Catholic
Debate Forum (CDF) made by Bob Jaffray there, I post it
here as well as the original posting which can be found by
clicking here).
Jimmy Akin has an article on sola fide and his perception of the
Catholic teaching on this subject. Let us look at that site and
engage the discussion. Mr. Jaffray states that no Catholic has
been willing to engage him on this subject. I find that rather
hard to believe, and have searched the archives here on CDF
where he claims to have made this challenge "several times"
and I have come up empty. I did find a FEW passing comments
regarding Mr. Akin - but none which specifically dealt with the
subject of sola fide and/or included a link to Mr. Akin's site so
that we even COULD engage the discussion. If such a post
from Mr. Jaffray does indeed exist on CDF, I would like to see
it.

Rather than wait for documentation from Mr. Jaffray (which
almost never - if ever materializes) here is the link to Jimmy
Akin's article on sola fide:

http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/faith_al.htm

And below I will interact with Mr. Akin's article. For clarity I
will put Mr. Akin's words in blue and preface them with a ">"
symbol.

>

Justification by Faith Alone

>
> by James Akin
>
> Many Protestants today realize that Catholics adhere to the
> idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone),

Mr. Jaffray, are you among those who realize that Catholics
adhere to the idea of salvation sola gratia (by grace alone)?

> but fewer are aware that Catholics also do not have to
> condemn the formula of justification sola fide (by faith alone),
> provided this phrase is properly understood.

I too have said this in the past. However, as Protestantism
understands the terminology - it is heresy. Also, if we go
by a "straightforward reading" of Scripture - the ONLY place
the words "faith" and "alone" are used together in the same
sentence is James 2:24 and it is in NEGATION of faith
alone!

> The term pistis is used in the Bible in a number of different
> senses, ranging from intellectual belief (Romans 14:22, 23,
> James 2:19), to assurance (Acts 17:31), and even to
> trustworthiness or reliability (Romans 3:3, Titus 2:10). Of
> key importance is Galatians 5:6, which refers to "faith
> working by charity." In Catholic theology, this is what is
> known as fide formata or "faith formed by charity." The
> alternative to formed faith is fide informis or "faith unformed
> by charity." This is the kind of faith described in James 2:19,
> for example.

In other words - there are many ways to look at the word "faith"
in Scripture - not just one. Mr. Akin would then appear to be
positing that the kind of faith which MAY be applicable to sola
fide is not an "alone faith" but one which is WORKING through
CHARITY, per the Galatians 5:6 reference. Mr. Akin continues
this thought process...

> Whether a Catholic will condemn the idea of justification by
> faith alone depends on what sense the term "faith" is being
> used in.

Which is precisely my point as well.

> If it is being used to refer to unformed faith then a Catholic
> rejects the idea of justification by faith alone (which is the
> point James is making in James 2:19, as every
> non-antinomian Evangelical agrees; one is not justified by
> intellectual belief alone).
>
> However, if the term "faith" is being used to refer to faith
> formed by charity then the Catholic does not have to condemn
> the idea of justification by faith alone. In fact, in traditional
> works of Catholic theology, one regularly encounters the
> statement that formed faith is justifying faith. If one has
> formed faith, one is justified. Period.

My problem, however, is to embrace terminology invented by
the Protestants who came up with this terminology in direct
opposition to the Catholic Church. Perhaps Mr. Akin makes
this argument in a "spirit of ecumenism" - but in my humble
opinion, it would be a false ecumenism, for we truly do NOT
adhere to nor embrace what the Protestants embraced when
they invented the terminology.

> A Catholic would thus reject the idea of justification sola
> fide informi but wholeheartedly embrace the idea of
> justification sola fide formata. Adding the word "formed" to
> clarify the nature of the faith in "sola fide" renders the
> doctrine completely acceptable to a Catholic.

And therein lies the rub - Protestants who embrace sola fide
would not permit the "addition" of the word "formed" (or
formata) to one of their pillars of the so-called reformation.

> Why, then, do Catholics not use the ther (word?) in this
> regard, we would have to say, "Jesus is not God." Obviously,
> the Church could not have people running around saying
> "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is not God," though both would
> be perfectly consistent with the Trinity depending on how
> the term "God" is being used (i.e., as a noun or a proper
> name for the Father). Hopeless confusion (and charges of
> heresy, and bloodbaths) would have resulted in the early
> centuries if the Church did not specify the meaning of the
> term "God" when used in this context.
>
> Of course, the Bible uses the term "God" in both senses,
> but to avoid confusion (and heretical misunderstandings on
> the part of the faithful, who could incline to either Arianism
> or Modalism if they misread the word "God" in the above
> statements) it later became necessary to adopt one usage
> over the other when discussing the identity of Jesus.

With all due respect to Mr. Akin here, I do not accept this
logic. Jesus IS God, and "God" is not merely a proper
noun/name for the Father. God the Father is not God the
Son, and neither are God the Holy Ghost - but ALL THREE
are God. It would NEVER be a proper Catholic argument
to say Jesus is not God. In every sense that the Father is
God, so is the Son and so is the Holy Ghost.

> A similar phenomenon occurs in connection with the word
> "faith." Evangelical leaders know this by personal experience
> since they have to continually fight against antinomian
> understandings of the term "faith" (and the corresponding
> antinomian evangelistic practices and false conversions that
> result). Because "faith" is such a key term, it is necessary
> that each theological school have a fixed usage of it in
> practice, even though there is more than one use of the term
> in the Bible. Evangelical leaders, in response to the
> antinomianism that has washed over the American church
> scene in the last hundred and fifty years, are attempting to
> impose a uniform usage to the term "faith" in their community
> to prevent these problems. (And may they have good luck in
> this, by the way.)

Before we proceed, for those who do not know the terminology,
we should define "antinomianism." Literally the word breaks
down as follows: anti = against nomos = law, thus the
Antinomians are "against the (moral) law." They hold to a
radical, yet logical, conclusion of the statement on sola fide,
and that being that good works do not promote salvation nor
do evil works hinder it (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01564b.htm
for a more in depth discussion of this topic).

> This leads me to why Catholics do not use the formula "faith
> alone." Given the different usages of the term "faith" in the
> Bible, the early Church had to decide which meaning would
> be treated as normative. Would it be the Galatians 5 sense
> or the Romans 14/James 2 sense? The Church opted for the
> latter for several reasons:
>
> First, the Romans 14 sense of the term pistis is frankly the
> more common in the New Testament. It is much harder to
> think of passages which demand that pistis mean "faith
> formed by charity" than it is to think of passages which
> demand that pistis mean "intellectual belief." In fact, even in
> Galatians 5:6 itself, Paul has to specify that it is faith formed
> by charity that he is talking about, suggesting that this is not
> the normal use of the term in his day.
>
> Second, the New Testament regularly (forty-two times in the
> KJV) speaks of "the faith," meaning a body of theological
> beliefs (e.g. Jude 3). The connection between pistis and
> intellectual belief is clearly very strong in this usage.
>
> Third, Catholic theology has focused on the triad of faith,
> hope, and charity, which Paul lays great stress on and
> which is found throughout his writings, not just in
> 1 Corinthians 13:13 (though that is the locus classicus for
> it), including places where it is not obvious because of the
> English translation or the division of verses. If in this triad
> "faith" is taken to mean "formed faith" then hope and
> charity are collapsed into faith and the triad is flattened.
> To preserve the distinctiveness of each member of the triad,
> the Church chose to use the term "faith" in a way that did
> not include within it the ideas of hope (trust) and charity
> (love). Only by doing this could the members of the triad be
> kept from collapsing into one another.
>
> Thus the Catholic Church normally expresses the core
> essences of these virtues like this:
>
> Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God
> and believe all that he has said and revealed to us . . .
> because he is truth itself. (CCC 1814)
>
> Hope is the theological virtue by which we desire the
> kingdom of heaven and eternal life as our happiness,
> placing our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on
> our own strength, but on the help of the grace of the
> Holy Spirit. (CCC 1817)
>
> Charity is the theological virtue by which we love God
> above all things for his own sake, and our neighbor as
> ourselves for the love of God. (CCC 1822)
>
> In common Catholic usage, faith is thus unconditional
> belief in what God says, hope is unconditional trust in
> God, and charity is unconditional love for God. When
> we are justified, God places all three of these virtues in
> our hearts. These virtues are given to each of the justified,
> even though our outward actions do not always reflect
> them because of the fallen nature we still possess.
> Thus a person may still have the virtue of faith even if
> momentarily tempted by doubt, a person may still have
> the virtue of trust even if scared or tempted by despair,
> and a person may still have the virtue of charity even if
> he is often selfish. Only a direct, grave violation (mortal
> sin against) of one of the virtues destroys the virtue.

I did not interject for a while here because I wanted Mr. Akin's
point to be contextually made. In short, though he's making
an argument where a Catholic could accept a properly
defined concept of sola fide - he's defined his way right out
of the "sola" of sola fide! Mr. Akin's argument (which is, the
Catholic and scriptural argument) is in reality that we are
justified by faith, hope AND charity - and NOT by faith alone!

> As our sanctification progresses, these virtues within us
> are strengthened by God and we are able to more easily
> exercise faith, more easily exercise trust, and more easily
> exercise love. Performing acts of faith, hope, and charity
> becomes easier as we grow in the Christian life (note the
> great difficulty new converts often experience in these
> areas compared to those who have attained a measure of
> spiritual maturity).

Again I emphasize, Mr. Akin is NOT preaching faith ALONE
here, but faith, hope and charity.

> However, so long as one has any measure of faith, hope,
> and charity, one is in a state of justification. Thus
> Catholics often use the soteriological slogan that we are
> "saved by faith, hope, and charity." This does not disagree
> with the Protestant soteriological slogan that we are "saved
> by faith alone" if the term "faith" is understood in the latter
> to be faith formed by charity or Galatians 5 faith.

I would like to see a proponent of sola fide accept Mr. Akin's
conditional soteriological statement of sola fide. It has been
my experience that once we start putting "conditions" on it,
they will reject it as no longer "sola" fide.

> One will note, in the definitions of the virtues offered above,
> the similarity between hope and the way Protestants
> normally define "faith"; that is, as an unconditional "placing
> our trust in Christ's promises and relying not on our own
> strength, but on the help of the grace of the Holy Spirit."
> The definition Protestants normally give to "faith" is the
> definition Catholics use for "hope."
>
> However, the Protestant idea of faith by no means excludes
> what Catholics refer to as faith, since every Evangelical
> would (or should) say that a person with saving faith will
> believe whatever God says because God is absolutely
> truthful and incapable of making an error. Thus the
> Protestant concept of faith normally includes both the
> Catholic concept of faith and the Catholic concept of hope.

In other words, faith is not alone. Protestants must combine
two Catholic concepts (which existed before there ever was
a Protestant) to make one concept which they would call the
"faith" of sola fide. In short, they must play a word game and
Catholics really should have no part of this. We should insist
upon the traditional and scriptural view we have ALWAYS
held on to in this regard. To imply that we (Catholics and
Protestants) are really saying the same thing with different
words implies a unity which truly does not yet exist between
us. Again, I would be quite interested to see/hear an adherent
to sola fide actually accept what Mr. Akin says here. If they
do, then they have rejected faith alone, for what Mr. Akin has
presented is faith, hope AND charity are ALL THREE
necessary for justification. It would seem to me to be outright
deceptive to say the concept of sola fide includes hope and
charity - for now faith is not alone, and that is what "sola fide"
literally means.

> Thus if a Protestant further specifies that saving faith is a
> faith which "works by charity" then the two soteriological
> slogans become equivalents. The reason is that a faith which
> works by charity is a faith which produces acts of love. But a
> faith which produces acts of love is a faith which includes the
> virtue of charity, the virtue of charity is the thing that enables
> us to perform acts of supernatural love in the first place. So a
> Protestant who says saving faith is a faith which works by
> charity, as per Galatians 5:6, is saying the same thing as a
> Catholic when a Catholic says that we are saved by faith,
> hope, and charity.

And again, if it is faith, hope AND charity - it is no longer faith
ALONE, and the concept of "sola fide" is null and void, no
matter how many word games we try to play to try and force
a unity between Catholics and Protestants. I might add, for
the same reason I don't play the word game over sola fide, I
do not play the same game with those who claim they are
not Protestants, while they stand there in "protest" of what
the Catholic Church teaches. I add this point because I
know there are some "Evangelicals" out there who are saying,
"I'm not a Protestant." That's another discussion for a later
time, but I wanted to make the point that I am consistent when
it comes to these word games.

> We may put the relationship between the two concepts as follows:
> Protestant idea of faith = Catholic idea of faith
> + Catholic idea of hope + Catholic idea of charity

In other words, a word game. My mentor and godfather always
told me, "words mean things," and that's a point I cannot forget.
So long as "words mean things" we cannot accept a watered
down concept of "sola fide" really meaning what Catholics have
said all along. IF it is as Catholics have taught all along, then
let's be honest about it - and drop this Protestant invention of
"sola fide."

> The three theological virtues of Catholic theology are thus
> summed up in the (good) Protestant's idea of the virtue of faith.
> And the Protestant slogan "salvation by faith alone" becomes
> the Catholic slogan "salvation by faith, hope, and charity (alone)."

He's repeating himself, I believe I've made my point here.

> This was recognized a few years ago in The Church's Confession
> of Faith: A Catholic Catechism for Adults, put out by the German
> Conference of Bishops, which stated:
>
> Catholic doctrine . . . says that only a faith alive in graciously
> bestowed love can justify. Having "mere" faith without love, merely
> considering something true, does not justify us. But if one
> understands faith in the full and comprehensive biblical sense,
> then faith includes conversion, hope, and love good Catholic
> sense. According to Catholic doctrine, faith encompasses both
> trusting in God on the basis of his mercifulness proved in Jesus
> Christ and confessing the salvific work of God through Jesus
> Christ in the Holy Spirit. Yet this faith is never alone. It includes
> other acts

And this is exactly what I am saying! "(T)his faith is never alone.
It includes other acts!"

> The same thing was recognized in a document written a few
> years ago under the auspices of the (Catholic) German
> Conference of Bishops and the bishops of the Council of the
> Evangelical Church in Germany (the Lutheran church). The
> purpose of the document, titled The Condemnations of the
> Reformation Era: Do They Still Divide?, was to determine
> which of the sixteenth-century Catholic and Protestant
> condemnations are still applicable to the other party. Thus
> the joint committee which drafted the document went over
> the condemnations from Trent and assessed which of them
> no longer applied to Lutherans and the condemnations of the
> Augsburg Confession and the Smalcald Articles, etc., and
> assesses which of them are not applicable to Catholics.
>
> When it came to the issue of justification by faith alone, the
> document concluded:
> "[T]oday the difference about our interpretation of faith is no
> longer a reason for mutual condemnation . . . even though in
> the Reformation period it was seen as a profound antithesis
> of ultimate and decisive force. By this we mean the
> confrontation between the formulas 'by faith alone,' on the
> one hand, and 'faith, hope, and love,' on the other.
>
> "We may follow Cardinal Willebrand and say: 'In Luther's
> sense the word 'faith' by no means intends to exclude either
> works or love or even hope. We may quite justly say that
> Luther's concept of faith, if we take it in its fullest sense,
> surely means nothing other than what we in the Catholic
> Church term love' (1970, at the General Assembly of the
> World Lutheran Federation in Evian).
>
> If we take all this to heart, we may say the following: If we
> translate from one language to another, then Protestant
> talk about justification through faith corresponds to Catholic
> talk about justification through grace; and on the other hand,
> Protestant doctrine understands substantially under the one
> word 'faith' what Catholic doctrine (following 1 Cor. 13:13)
> sums up in the triad of 'faith, hope, and love.' But in this
> case the mutual rejections in this question can be viewed as
> no longer applicable today
>
> "According to [Lutheran] Protestant interpretation, the faith
> that clings unconditionally to God's promise in Word and
> Sacrament is sufficient for righteousness before God, so that
> the renewal of the human being, without which there can be
> no faith, does not in itself make any contribution to justification.
> Catholic doctrine knows itself to be at one with the Protestant
> concern in emphasizing that the renewal of the human being
> does not 'contribute' to justification, and is certainly not a
> contribution to which he could make any appeal before God.
> Nevertheless it feels compelled to stress the renewal of the
> human being through justifying grace, for the sake of
> acknowledging God's newly creating power; although this
> renewal in faith, hope, and love is certainly nothing but a
> response to God's unfathomable grace. Only if we observe
> this distinction can we say
>
> "In addition to concluding that canons 9 and 12 of the Decree
> on Justification did not apply to modern Protestants, the
> document also concluded that canons 1-13, 16, 24, and 32
> do not apply to modern Protestants (or at least modern
> Lutherans)."
>
> During the drafting of this document, the Protestant participants
> asked what kind of authority it would have in the Catholic
> Church, and the response given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who
> was the Catholic corresponding head of the joint commission)
> was that it would have considerable authority. The German
> Conference of Bishops is well-known in the Catholic Church for
> being very cautious and orthodox and thus the document would
> carry a great deal of weight even outside of Germany, where
> the Protestant Reformation started.
>
> Furthermore, the Catholic head of the joint commission was
> Ratzinger himself, who is also the head of the Congregation for
> the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome, which is the body charged
> by the pope with protecting the purity of Catholic doctrine. Next
> to the pope himself, the head of the CDF is the man most
> responsible for protecting orthodox Catholic teaching, and the
> head of the CDF happened to be the Catholic official with
> ultimate oversight over the drafting of the document.

For those who do not know, then Cardinal Ratzinger is now His
Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

> Before the joint commission met, Cardinal Ratzinger and
> Lutheran Bishop Eduard Lohse (head of the Lutheran church
> in Germany) issued a letter expressing the purpose of the
> document, stating:
>
> "[O]ur common witness is counteracted by judgments
> passed by one church on the other during the sixteenth
> century, judgments which found their way into the
> Confession of the Lutheran and Reformed churches and
> into the doctrinal decisions of the Council of Trent.
> According to the general conviction, these so-called
> condemnations no longer apply to our partner today. But
> this must not remain a merely private persuasion. It must
> be established in binding form."
>
> I say this as a preface to noting that the commission
> concluded that canon 9 of Trent's Decree on Justification
> is not applicable to modern Protestants (or at least those
> who say saving faith is Galatians 5 faith). This is important
> because canon 9 is the one dealing with the "faith alone"
> formula (and the one R.C. Sproul is continually hopping up
> and down about). It states:
>
> "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, so
> as to understand that nothing else is required to cooperate
> in the attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be
> anathema."
>
> The reason this is not applicable to modern Protestants is
> that Protestants (at least the good ones) do not hold the
> view being condemned in this canon.

"The good ones?" That terminology would seem to be a bit
offensive to both sides (Catholic and Protestant).

> Like all Catholic documents of the period, it uses the
> term "faith" in the sense of intellectual belief in whatever
> God says. Thus the position being condemned is the
> idea that we are justified by intellectual assent alone
> (as per James 2). We might rephrase the canon:
>
> "If anyone says that the sinner is justified by intellectual
> assent alone, so as to understand that nothing besides
> intellectual assent is required to cooperate in the
> attainment of the grace of justification . . . let him be
> anathema."

We start walking on thin ice when we start paraphrasing
the Council of Trent. The statement from Trent is "faith
alone" and it should remain such.

> And every non-antinomian Protestant would agree with
> this, since in addition to intellectual assent one must
> also repent, trust, etc.
>
> So Trent does not condemn the (better) Protestant
> understanding of faith alone. In fact, the canon allows
> the formula to be used so long as it is not used so as
> to understand that nothing besides intellectual assent
> is required. The canon only condemns "sola fide" if it
> is used "so as to understand that nothing else
> [besides intellectual assent] is required" to attain
> justification. Thus Trent is only condemning one
> interpretation of the sola fide formula and not the
> formula itself.

Again, I respectfully beg to differ. Trent condemned the
theology of "faith alone," period. When we start playing
with the words - we can get them to say anything we
would want them to say. A straight-forward reading of
the text from Trent is faith alone is condemned and any
Catholic who would hold this statement is anathema.

> I should mention at this point that I think Trent was
> absolutely right in what it did and that it phrased the
> canon in the perfect manner to be understood by the
> Catholic faithful of the time. The term "faith" had long
> been established as referring to intellectual assent, as
> per Romans 14:22-23, James 2:14-26, 1 Corinthians
> 13:13, etc., and thus everyday usage of the formula
> "faith alone" had to be squashed in the Catholic
> community because it would be understood to mean
> "intellectual assent alone"

Again, I respectfully beg to differ. The statement of "faith
alone" - as understood or used by the adherents to the
soteriological slogan of "sola fide" - does not include
anything added to faith. We do find the doublespeak of
the likes of RC Sproul, stating "it is faith alone, but not
a faith which is alone," and that - again - leaves us with
nothing more than word games or doublespeak.

> The Church could no more allow people to run around
> indiscriminately using the faith alone formula than
> other confusing formulas. While this formula can be
> given a perfectly orthodox meaning, that is not how it
> will be understood by the masses.

And again, this is and has been my point! Using the
terminology of "sola fide" has a different meaning to the
masses. For Catholics to embrace the Protestant slogan
would be confusing, to say the least, and since our God
is not a God of confusion - neither should His Church be.
Let us stand FIRM in the traditions we have been taught!
Let us not wilt to the "spirit of ecumenism" and compromise
our faith - or even have the appearance of compromising
our faith for the sake of (a false) ecumenism.

> There must be continuity in the language of the faithful
> or massive confusion will result.

And again, this is and has been my point!

> In fact, one can argue that the problem of antinomianism
> in Protestantism is a product of the attempt by the
> Reformers to change the established usage of the term
> "faith" to include more than intellectual assent. The
> English verb "believe" (derived from Old High German)
> and the English noun "faith" (derived from French and
> before that Latin) were both formed under the historic
> Christian usage of the term "faith" and thus they
> connote intellectual assent.
>
> This is a deeply rooted aspect of the English language,
> which is why Protestant evangelists have to labor so
> hard at explaining to the unchurched why "faith alone"
> does not mean "intellectual assent alone." They have
> to work so hard at this because they are bucking the
> existing use of the language; the Reformers effort to
> change the meanings of the terms "believe" and "faith"
> have not borne significant fruit outside of the Protestant
> community.

In short, Mr. Akin is again agreeing with the stance which
I have maintained throughout. Protestantism started playing
a "word game" and invented the slogan of "sola fide" - and in
choosing Latin (which was still the "standard" for educated
and literate individuals in the 16th century) they do more
harm to their position than good. The pertinent question is,
if this were such a foundational teaching - why do NONE of
the Latin Early Church Fathers use this Latin phrase? Why
is it that the ONLY place in Scripture where the words "faith"
and "alone" are used together is in James 2:24 and the
statement is a DENIAL of faith alone? The conclusion here
is rather simple - for the objective reader, that is.

> This is also the reason Evangelical preaching often
> tragically slips into antinomianism. The historic meaning of
> the terms "believe" and "faith," which are still the
> established meanings outside the Protestant community,
> tend to reassert themselves in the Protestant community
> when people aren't paying attention, and antinomianism
> results.
>
> This reflects one of the tragedies of the Reformation. If the
> Reformers had not tried to overturn the existing usage of
> the term "faith" and had only specified it further to formed
> faith, if they had only adopted the slogan "iustificatio sola
> fide formata" instead of "iustificatio sola fide," then all of
> this could have been avoided. The Church would have
> embraced the formula,

So why would we now want to embrace the failed terminology
of the "Reformers?" Mr. Akin makes the point quite clearly
that Luther and those who followed, invented this terminology
in redefining the meaning of Justification. To ask the question
IF they had included "formata" in the statement really begs
the question in the first place!

> the split in Christendom might possibly have been avoided,
> and we would not have a problem with antinomianism today.

Well, there was more going on in the 16th century than a
mere scrimmage between Rome and Luther. The German
princes were using Luther to help them separate from the
authority of Rome. If it weren't Luther and justification, it
would have been someone else shortly thereafter. Who
knows if the split would have been so "successful" (in the
worst sense of the word) but such speculation is really
meaningless - it happened the way it happened and today
we must deal with the consequences.

> So I agree a hundred percent with what Trent did.

As do I!

> The existing usage of the term "faith" in connection with
> justification could not be overturned any more than the
> existing usage of the term "God" in connection with
> Jesus' identity could be overturned.

Again, I am not crazy about the analogy Mr. Akin uses here,
but the point is - saving faith is not alone. A faith which is
alone is a "dead faith" and a "dead faith" cannot save you.

> What both communities need to do today, now that a
> different usage has been established in them, is learn to
> translate between each others languages. Protestants
> need to be taught that the Catholic formula "salvation by
> faith, hope, and charity" is equivalent to what they mean
> by "faith alone." And Catholics need to be taught that
> (at least for the non-antinomians) the Protestant formula
> "faith alone" is equivalent to what they mean by "faith,
> hope, and charity."

Again, I'd like to see how many Protestants would actually
agree with Mr. Akin's assertions here. I, for one Catholic,
do not agree. I do not believe that what Protestants believe
is sola fide is in agreement with what Catholics teach on
justification - not without playing word games, and as I
said earlier - and even Mr. Akin agrees to a point - such
melding of terminology can serve to confuse the masses.

> It would be nice if the two groups could reconverge on
> a single formula, but that would take centuries to develop,
> and only as a consequence of the two groups learning to
> translate each others' theological vocabularies first.

Why should we go an retranslate what we have ALWAYS
taught? We are not the ones who came up with this
invented terminology in the 16th century. No, there was
no "reformation" in the 16th century - the Protestants did
not "reform" they developed new churches and used new
terminology and new definitions of existing terms. True
ecumenism does not cave in to what is true and what is
right. True ecumenism might explain to THEM that if they
really examine their arguments - it is THEY who need to
COME BACK to US.

> Before a reconvergence of language could take place,
> the knowledge that the two formulas mean the same
> thing would first need to be as common as the knowledge
> that English people drive on the left-hand side of the road
> instead of on the right-hand side as Americans do. That is
> not going to happen any time soon, but for now we must
> do what we can in helping others to understand what the
> two sides are saying.

Again, IF they are not REALLY meaning anything different,
then let them CONVERT or REVERT back to the One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church! Let's not submit to their
word games. Let us remain firm in the traditions we were
taught.

> (Needless to say, this whole issue of translating theological
> vocabularies is very important to me since I have been both
> a committed Evangelical and a committed Catholic and thus
> have had to learn to translate the two vocabularies through
> arduous effort in reading theological dictionaries,
> encyclopedias, systematic theologies, and Church documents.
> So I feel like banging my head against a wall whenever I hear
> R.C. Sproul and others representing canon 9 as a manifest
> and blatant condemnation of Protestant doctrine, or even all
> Protestants, on this point.)

Well, I too have been an "Evangelical" - in fact, I was a Lutheran!
And when I converted, I did not make a statement that I accept
that what I had believed all along was the same thing that
Catholics teach - just with different definitions! No! I stood there
and RENOUNCED my former faith! I publicly declared that what
I once believed was ERROR and that I now embraced the One,
Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church as THE Church which Jesus
Christ Himself built. Again, with all due respect, I believe it is
a serious error to embrace the 16th century errors as a simple
misunderstanding.

> The fact "faith" is normally used by Catholics to refer to
> intellectual assent (as in Romans 14:22-23, 1 Corinthians 13:13,
> and James 2:14-26) is one reason Catholics do not use the
> "faith alone" formula even though they agree with what (better)
> Protestants mean by it. The formula runs counter to the historic
> meaning of the term "faith."

EXACTLY! So let's not water down OUR FAITH for the sake
of appeasing those who "protest" against OUR FAITH!

> The other reason is that, frankly, the formula itself (though
> not what it is used to express) is flatly unbiblical. The phrase
> "faith alone" (Greek, pisteos monon), occurs exactly once in
> the Bible, and there it is rejected:
>
> "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
> (Jas. 2:24)"

Again, that has been the point I have been making all along! We
should stand firm in the biblical statement and boldly correct those
who wish to play word games and alter the plain reading of the
Scripture in James 2:24.

> Without going into the subject of what kind of justification is
> being discussed here (which is misunderstood by most
> Evangelical commentators on Catholicism, see below), the
> phrase "faith alone" is itself rejected. Even though Protestants
> can give the phrase orthodox theological content, the phrase
> itself is unbiblical. If we wish to conform our theological
> language to the language of the Bible, we need to conform
> our usage of the phrase "faith alone" to the use of that phrase
> in the Bible.
>
> Thus, if we are to conform our language to the language of the
> Bible, we need to reject usage of the formula "faith alone" while
> at the same time preaching that man is justified "by faith and
> not by works of the Law" (which Catholics can and should and
> must and do preach, as Protestants would know if they read
> Catholic literature). James 2:24 requires rejection of the first
> formula while Romans 3:28 requires the use of the second.

Again, that is EXACTLY what I have been saying all along! So,
in summary, Mr. Akin negates all the platitudes he offers in the
earlier part of his article! In the end - WE AGREE 100%! It
would be ERROR for us to embrace the terminology of the
Protestants! It would be, on the other hand, desireable for us
to teach them what we mean and show them that what they
must REALLY mean is in compliance with what we have been
teaching all along. If they remain insistent on the protest
language of the original Protestants - then they are just not
yet ready to convert.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<