God of Calvinism

SW: I wrote: "Our God is not the god of Calvinism."(1)  To which John Lollard wrote:

JL: I think that's a strange thing to hear you say. How seriously do you believe that Calvinists worship a false god of their own construction?

SW: I am quite serious about this.  They have taken a few verses from the context of Scripture as a whole and portray God as an unloving, arbitrary and unjust god.  I know, they reject this portrayal, but truly they can't get around it.   A favorite cited in response to Catholics is Romans 9:18,  "Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will; and whom he will, he hardeneth."   This is not saying that God has already decided, in our view of time, whom He will have mercy upon or whom He will harden, only that in specific cases, such as Pharoah (v. 17) where He has singled out someone to demonstrate His power, "To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee, and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth."  Consider why God would want to "show His power" - that His Name may be declared throughout the earth... not just "the Elect" - but the entire earth.   Why would God need to have His Name declared throughout the earth if He's already decided whom He will save and whom He will condemn?  Calvinist logic is severely lacking here!

The context continues on:  

¹⁹Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? for who resisteth his will? ²⁰O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus? ²¹Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?  ²²What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction, ²³That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he hath prepared unto glory?  

The Calvinist would compare the Catholic position to the clay complaining to the Potter, however, again, the context is NOT about everyone in general being created for mercy or hardening, but for specific cases, like Pharoah.  Again, it makes no sense that God would need or want to proclaim His power to the earth if He's already made up His mind.

JL: For instance, if Calvinists worship a different (and hence false) god, then are they Christians?

SW: That would depend on how hard you want to draw the line of defining "Christian."  If that line is drawn at "one who believes in Jesus Christ," then I would say they are Christian.  Likewise, I would say Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are Christian by that standard.  If the line is drawn at "one who believes Jesus Christ is True God and True Man, who gives Himself freely to ALL who will accept Him as their Lord and Savior," that pretty much eliminates the LDS, JWs AND Calvinists.  So, when I speak "seriously" about this matter of a "different gospel" and/or the "false god of Calvinism," it is this higher view of God, not the overly simplified "one who believes in Jesus Christ."

JL: If so, then in what sense?

SW: Well, I have pretty much answered that above.  To reiterate, if one is taking this higher view of God as One who "freely gives" Himself to ALL who will accept Him, then we (Catholics v. Calvinists) don't have the same deity.  

JL:  In worshipping their false Calvinist deity, are they guilty of idolatry?

SW:  Idolatry implies the worship of an actual object, like a statue or a mountain or a tree, so no, I would not call their worship "idolatry."

SW: The above answers the direct questions Mr. Lollard asked, but how about some more details?

What is the god of Calvinism?

Calvinism adheres to a strict concept of predestination where by they believe that God has already predestined everyone to Heaven or Hell.  Let us look at Calvin's own words:

In conformity, therefore, to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, we assert, that by an eternal and immutable counsel, God has once for all determined, both whom he would admit to salvation, and whom he would condemn to destruction. We affirm that this counsel, as far as concerns the elect, is founded on his gratuitous mercy, totally irrespective of human merit; but that to those whom he devotes to condemnation, the gate of life is closed by a just and irreprehensible, but incomprehensible, judgment. In the elect, we consider calling as an evidence of election, and justification as another token of its manifestation, till they arrive in glory, which constitutes its completion. As God seals his elect by vocation and justification, so by excluding the reprobate from the knowledge of his name and the sanctification of his Spirit, he affords an indication of the judgement that awaits them. (emphasis mine).(2)

Now, while I agree with Calvin that for those who are saved this is founded/based on His gratuitous mercy and is totally irrespective of human merit.  No one "earns" salvation, but that is not what Calvinists of today focus on here!  They focus on the bolded text above and have developed an ungodly (from the perspective of the True God) concept of predestination.  I have recently had a discussion on "foreknowledge" with Barry Hofstetter(3)  and I believe it is this concept of foreknowledge or "prescience" where Calvinism goes awry.  

A proper sense of this foreknowledge or "prescience" would be based in the fact that from God's perspective there is no past or future.  God is outside of our concept of time.  RC Sproul explains it this way, separating foreknowledge from what God foreordains:

If God foreordains anything, it is absolutely certain that what He foreordains will come to pass. The purpose of God can never be frustrated. Even God's foreknowledge or prescience makes future events certain with respect to time. That is to say, if God knows on Tuesday that I will drive to Pittsburgh on Friday, then there is no doubt that, come Friday, I will drive to Pittsburgh. Otherwise God's knowledge would have been in error. Yet, there is a significant difference between God's knowing that I would drive to Pittsburgh and God's ordaining that I would do so. Theoretically He could know of a future act without ordaining it, but He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining. But in either case, the future event would be certain with respect to time and the knowledge of God.(4)

This brings us back to the so-called "Golden Chain of Redemption" discussion:

²⁹For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren.³⁰And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30

God does not predestine those whom He has not first foreknown!  Therein lies the fatal flaw of Calvinism's view on predestination!  Sproul (whom I often disagree with) has it right when he said, "He could not ordain it without knowing what it is that He is ordaining."  So those whom He has foreknown to make the right decisions and to persevere until the end of the race, it is those whom God has foreordained and calls "the elect."  If it were not so then Scripture itself would not make sense where it tells us to "persevere" and "run to win the race" or to "buffet (our) body" as St. Paul Himself said:

²⁷But I chastise (buffet) my body, and bring it into subjection: lest perhaps, when I have preached to others, I myself should become a castaway. 1 Corinthians 9:27

If St. Paul himself worries about losing his own soul and becoming a "castaway" - how much more should the rest of us be concerned?  God does already know where we'll be at the "end of the race" - but from OUR PERSPECTIVE we cannot and do not KNOW this.  We can have confidence in the fact that by His Grace He has given us the strength to accomplish the desired end(5) and that He will not allow us to be tempted beyond our ability to resist the temptation(6).  These scriptural concepts make no sense if God foreordains WITHOUT foreknowledge of the outcomes of our temptations and/or perseverance.

Sometimes called the "classicus locus"(7) regarding Calvinism's predestination is Ephesians 1:3-11:

³Blessed by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with spiritual blessings in heavenly places, in Christ:
⁴As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity.
⁵Who hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children through Jesus Christ unto himself: according to the purpose of his will:
⁶Unto the praise of the glory of his grace, in which he hath graced us in his beloved son.
⁷In whom we have redemption through his blood, the remission of sins, according to the riches of his grace,
⁸Which hath superabounded in us in all wisdom and prudence,
⁹That he might make known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in him,
¹⁰In the dispensation of the fulness of times, to re-establish all things in Christ, that are in heaven and on earth, in him.
¹¹In whom we also are called by lot, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things according to the counsel of his will.

Now, keep in mind, the person writing this also wrote what we read above in 1 Corinthians 9:27!  So, either we have a contradiction of thought in St. Paul of 1 Corinthians v. St. Paul of Ephesians or this concept of predestination is based in foreknowledge - that God has foreknown the acts of men and therefore based upon this knowledge He predestines some to Heaven and others to Hell.  Rather than assent to a scriptural contradiction here, logic would side with the latter rather than the former.  If we read Ephesians 1 from the perspective that God already knows then it is not difficult to accept that He has also predestined those who will, in our perspective of time, persevere to the end and receive the prize which awaits the winner of the race.

The god of Calvinism is a "sovereign god" who will not have his will dictated by the acts of men.    This god has created men for salvation and others for damnation - simply because he desires some to live eternally with him and at the same time wishes some to perish in everlasting fire.  When one points out the unlovingness or unfairness of such a god - the Calvinist will be quick to throw Romans 9:18ff into the argument.  As we have already seen, Romans 9 is not about mankind in general, but about specific individuals whom God has used to show His power and might.  


Catholicism does not deny the sovereignty of God - we accept that it is PART OF GOD'S FREE WILL(8) that God GAVE men FREE WILL.  God ALLOWS for men to freely choose or reject Him (except in specific cases, as pointed out in Romans 9, where God uses individuals for His Own purpose).  That ALLOWS for men to truly LOVE Him, for God IS Love(9). Love is not something forced upon another, no true love is something GIVEN and GIVEN FREELY by the lover(10).  Therefore it is illogical to think that God chose "the elect" without their consent and through some "Irresistible Grace" (the "I" in TULIP) God has forced "the elect" into obedience and a warped concept of "love."  It is God's Will that we love Him, TRULY love Him - and those outside of His Will will suffer the ultimate - an eternity without God.

I hope this discussion has helped you, and if it has - I invite your comments.  As always, I also invite those critical of what I have said to comment.  

In JMJ,
Scott<<<




Footnotes:
(1) Windsor, Scott earlier on the CathApol Blog.
(2) Calvin, John,  Institutes, Book III, Chapter 21.7 - qtd. from here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/calvin-predestin2.asp full source and context available here: http://www.reformed.org/books/institutes/books/book3/bk3ch21.html
(3) Catholic Debate Forum discussion started here and continues here then the concept is further challenged here.
(4) Sproul, R.C. qtd. from here: http://www.the-highway.com/DoublePredestination_Sproul.html
(5) Philippians 4:13 - "I can do all these things in him who strengtheneth me."
(6) 1 Corinthians 10:13 - "Let no temptation take hold on you, but such as is human. And God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able: but will make also with temptation issue, that you may be able to bear it."
(7) White, James R. from debate: Does the Bible Teach Predestination? 
(8) CCC 295 We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance. We believe that it proceeds from God's free will; he wanted to make his creatures share in his being, wisdom and goodness: "For you created all things, and by your will they existed and were created." Therefore the Psalmist exclaims: "O LORD, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all"; and "The LORD is good to all, and his compassion is over all that he has made."
(9) CCC 257 "O blessed light, O Trinity and first Unity!" God is eternal blessedness, undying life, unfading light. God is love: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God freely wills to communicate the glory of his blessed life. Such is the "plan of his loving kindness", conceived by the Father before the foundation of the world, in his beloved Son: "He destined us in love to be his sons" and "to be conformed to the image of his Son", through "the spirit of sonship". This plan is a "grace [which] was given to us in Christ Jesus before the ages began", stemming immediately from Trinitarian love. It unfolds in the work of creation, the whole history of salvation after the fall, and the missions of the Son and the Spirit, which are continued in the mission of the Church.
(10) CCC 2002 God's free initiative demands man's free response, for God has created man in his image by conferring on him, along with freedom, the power to know him and love him. The soul only enters freely into the communion of love. God immediately touches and directly moves the heart of man. He has placed in man a longing for truth and goodness that only he can satisfy. The promises of "eternal life" respond, beyond all hope, to this desire:

If at the end of your very good works . . ., you rested on the seventh day, it was to foretell by the voice of your book that at the end of our works, which are indeed "very good" since you have given them to us, we shall also rest in you on the sabbath of eternal life.

Sola Scriptura and Sproul Redux

I am reposting this since the first time it seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle, plus I use it in response to Turretinfan.

(Source - if this changes, I'll update the link)

My Response:

RC Sproul, Jr. writes: "The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."  There are others, in fact a non-Catholic friend of mine on the Locutus Webboard asked about sola scriptura at NTRMin and "DTK" openly stated "no where in the Bible are these answers stated as posed," but it is rare to see a proponent of sola scriptura, in so many words flat out admit there is no specific text which suggests the Bible alone is (their) final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Kudos for Sproul on that.  He goes on to say, "Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura."  First off, let me say I do not delight in this for it is a sad truth he speaks here.  How many millions have been bamboosled by the lie of sola scriptura?  There can be no joy in knowing how many souls have been taken down this false path. 

The next point I'd make is "sola" and "solo" are really two conjugations of the same word in Latin, one has masculine form the other has feminine form.  When put with the feminine noun of "scriptura" - only "sola" is appropriate.  Secondly, being Latin, "scriptura" would not be capitalized.  This isn't really against what RC Sproul, Jr. is saying, just how he's saying it - and I can accept what he's saying, these are just a couple pet peeves of mine.  For the sake of the argument, I'll "make no more hay" over the use of "solo scriptura" in this response.  Sproul uses this differentiation between those who use Scripture as their final authority and those who would essentially use Scripture as the only authority.  In actuality, those whom he would say adhere to the Anabaptist error are indeed adherents to sola scriptura - whereas a more accurate term for folks like Sproul would be fina scriptura since Scripture is not the only authority but it is the final authority.  In that respect whether you're calling it sola or solo scriptura - it is a-historical as well as reprehensible and ignorant to cling to the "sole" authority concept.

Sproul goes on to say:

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura.

I missed something there...  where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?  Let's try to get this straight, the Bible allegedly affirms "these giants have feet of clay," and supposedly from that "this is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura (sic)."  This is a complete non-sequitur.  Just because an authority has "feet of clay" (man), that is not an affirmation of anything being a sole or even final authority.

Next:

Sola Scriptura (sic) is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).

Let us first ask how finding the explicit teaching that Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice is a tautology.  A tautology is a needlessly repeated statement which does not provide additional force to the comment (eg. "a necessary requirement" or "one after the other in succession" or "to reiterate again" how about "joint cooperation?").   If there were a passage in Scripture which said, "Scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice" where's the tautology?  The point is, whether it is a tautology or not, it is not recorded in Scripture, period.

I'll leave the accusation upon the Book of Mormon alone for now not that I disagree, just that it seems an emotional and unsupported appeal to stir up anti-Mormonism.  The appeal would have substance if he gave us a couple of examples of these lies.  Unsubstantiated claims (whether I agree with them or not) should be avoided - so I am.

This brings us to the statement, "the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God."  And we must ask, where does the Bible itself teach that the Bible alone is the Word of God?  God spoke through the Prophets, was every word they spoke inscripturated?  Scripture itself also promises that the Holy Ghost would be with His Church, guiding the Church to all truth until Jesus returns again in glory - is the Holy Ghost mute?   Sproul uses Nicodemus as an example of Scripture teaching that Jesus is of God based upon the miracles Jesus did, "for no man can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."  Again with the non sequitur!  The fact that one does signs and wonders does not automatically equate to God being with him or the voice of God speaking through him!  Scripture even tells us that Pharoah's magicians performed signs and wonders matching Moses up to the final plague, does that mean Pharoah's magicians were with God because they performed signs?  The Beast/AntiChrist of Revelation 13 is mortally wounded and heals itself! 

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." [2 Thes. 2:9-10]

So signs and wonders are not the true sign that someone is with God or not!  They could be, but based on that alone you have a 50/50 chance.

Sproul goes on to say:

I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10. 

Sproul continues:

Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?

Why must these be added to the Bible?  Sproul already concedes there is no Scripture which states or even suggests that the Bible alone is the final authority on matter of faith or practice, so why insist upon this "solo" mentality? 

Sproul even states:

In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10 again.  Signs and wonders do not a prophet make!  Signs and wonders do not equivocate to one who speaks for God.

Next Sproul echos the same tome which anyone who has been around apologetics at all has seen:

But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.

Now, whereas we do have lists - no pope or council has seen it necessary to have an infallible list of dogmatic teachings.  You can turn to Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Sources of Catholic Dogma) or Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as rather exhaustive lists; but let us ask RC Sproul to provide us with the authoritative list of books which should be compiled into what he now calls The Bible!  In asking us to provide such lists, he defeats his own position because Scripture alone does not provide us with the authoritative list of what IS Scripture!  In fact, when on the subject of sola scriptura, as the Protestant final authority, it is a bit of a diversion to throw out a table-turning question to Catholics, or a red herring tactic to divert attention from where sola scriptura lacks even the capability to declare what necessarily comprises the Canon of Sacred Scripture.  On the other hand, Catholicism does not declare a single final authority in all matters.  For some matters, even most, Scripture is sufficient; however Scripture is silent on many matters, especially those involving moral decisions with modern technology, such as cloning and in vitro fertilization.
 
I will add, whether or not the Catholic Church has an infallible list of infallible documents has no bearing on the sola scriptura debate.  I maintain that the Scriptures are inerrant, however I would not say they are infallible.   People come up with fallible interpretations of Scripture all the time - which does not affect the inerrancy of Scripture - but Scripture does not interpret itself and even warns us that Scripture is hard to understand and can be interpreted to ones own destruction (St. Peter speaking of St. Paul's Epistles, 2 Peter 3:16).

Sproul begins to wrap it up here:

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

All Sproul provides here is a slippery slope argument.  The fact of the matter is, Scripture itself tells us that the Holy Ghost would be with Jesus' Church until the end of the age.  Did "the age" begin or end in 1517?  No, and if we were to accept it "began" there - then we'd have to also accept that for nearly 1500 years the Holy Ghost was not with His Church - or that His Church did not exist for that period of time.  Either way, it would make the promise of Scripture to be false for "until He returns again" does not exclude that 1500 year period.

And Sproul concludes this article with:

No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.

Again, we must remind Sproul of his concession - The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Nowhere does it teach that it (the Bible) alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Miracles alone are not absolute evidence something comes from God.

In short, not only does Sproul concede this debate from the onset - his rationalizations are proven to be illogical and not competent to stand under criticism.  Anyone who has believed what RC Sproul, Jr. teaches on this subject should flee from him.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Sola Scriptura and RC Sproul

I actually started this article a bit ago, but when the "Protestant Canon of Scripture" discussion started leaning toward a sola scriptura discussion, I held off a bit before posting it.  I post it now:

(Source - if this changes, I'll update the link)

My Response:

Sproul writes: "The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice."  There are others, in fact a non-Catholic friend of mine on the Locutus Webboard asked about sola scriptura at NTRMin and "DTK" openly stated "no where in the Bible are these answers stated as posed," but it is rare to see a proponent of sola scriptura, in so many words flat out admit there is no specific text which suggests the Bible alone is (their) final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Kudos for RC Sproul on that.  He goes on to say, "Those who delight to point this out, however, typically Roman Catholics and the eastern Orthodox, typically miss the point. First, their energies more often than not are aimed at the Anabaptist error that we call solo Scriptura."  First off, let me say I do not delight in this for it is a sad truth he speaks here.  How many millions have been bamboosled by the lie of sola scriptura?  There can be no joy in knowing how many souls have been taken down this false path. 

The next point I'd make is "sola" and "solo" are really two conjugations of the same word in Latin, one has masculine form the other has feminine form.  When put with the feminine noun of "scriptura" - only "sola" is appropriate.  Secondly, being Latin, "scriptura" would not be capitalized.  This isn't really against what RC Sproul is saying, just how he's saying it - and I can accept what he's saying, these are just a couple pet peeves of mine.  For the sake of the argument, I'll "make no more hay" over the use of "solo scriptura" in this response.  Sproul uses this differentiation between those who use Scripture as their final authority and those who would essentially use Scripture as the only authority.  In actuality, those whom he would say adhere to the Anabaptist error are indeed adherents to sola scriptura - whereas a more accurate term for folks like Sproul would be fina scriptura since Scripture is not the only authority but it is the final authority.  In that respect whether you're calling it sola or solo scriptura - it is a-historical as well as reprehensible and ignorant to cling to the "sole" authority concept.

RC Sproul goes on to say:

Sola Scriptura, like the Scriptures themselves, recognizes that God has gifted the church with teachers and pastors. It recognizes that the church has progressed and reached consensus on critical issues in and through the ancient ecumenical creeds. It affirms with vigor that we are all standing on the shoulders of giants. But it also affirms that even these giants have feet of clay. And there is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura.

I missed something there...  where does the Bible teach sola scriptura?  Let's try to get this straight, the Bible allegedly affirms "these giants have feet of clay," and supposedly from that "this is where the Bible does in the end teach sola Scriptura (sic)."  This is a complete non-sequitur.  Just because an authority has "feet of clay" (man), that is not an affirmation of anything being a sole or even final authority.

Next:

Sola Scriptura (sic) is a biblical doctrine not because the Bible says so. That would be a tautology- the kind of argument we find in that collection of lies the Book of Mormon. Instead the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God. It has been attested, authenticated, by God Himself. Miracles serve as the divine imprimatur, the proof that this is a message of God. This is how Nicodemus reasoned when he said, “Rabbi, we know that You are a teacher come from God; for no one can do these signs that You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). This is also how Jesus Himself reasoned when He first forgave the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. In response to the unspoken charge that He had blasphemed, Jesus told the man, “Arise, take up your bed, and go to your house” (Matthew 9:1-8).

Let us first ask how finding the explicit teaching that Scripture is the final authority in all matters of faith and practice is a tautology.  A tautology is a needlessly repeated statement which does not provide additional force to the comment (eg. "a necessary requirement" or "one after the other in succession" or "to reiterate again" how about "joint cooperation?").   If there were a passage in Scripture which said, "Scripture is the final authority on all matters of faith and practice" where's the tautology?  The point is, whether it is a tautology or not, it is not recorded in Scripture, period.

I'll leave the accusation upon the Book of Mormon alone for now not that I disagree, just that it seems an emotional and unsupported appeal to stir up anti-Mormonism.  The appeal would have substance if he gave us a couple of examples of these lies.  Unsubstantiated claims (whether I agree with them or not) should be avoided - so I am.

This brings us to the statement, "the Bible is our alone final authority because it alone is the Word of God."  And we must ask, where does the Bible itself teach that the Bible alone is the Word of God?  God spoke through the Prophets, was every word they spoke inscripturated?  Scripture itself also promises that the Holy Ghost would be with His Church, guiding the Church to all truth until Jesus returns again in glory - is the Holy Ghost mute?   Sproul uses Nicodemus as an example of Scripture teaching that Jesus is of God based upon the miracles Jesus did, "for no man can do these signs that You do unless God is with him."  Again with the non sequitur!  The fact that one does signs and wonders does not automatically equate to God being with him or the voice of God speaking through him!  Scripture even tells us that Pharoah's magicians performed signs and wonders matching Moses up to the final plague, does that mean Pharoah's magicians were with God because they performed signs?  The Beast/AntiChrist of Revelation 13 is mortally wounded and heals itself! 

"The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing." [2 Thes. 2:9-10]

So signs and wonders are not the true sign that someone is with God or not!  They could be, but based on that alone you have a 50/50 chance.

Sproul goes on to say:

I would be quite content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the ancient creeds of the church under the following conditions. First, those who gathered to formulate these creeds would need to have their message authenticated by miraculous works. Let them raise men from the dead.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10. 

Sproul continues:

Second, we must add those creeds to our Bibles. If both sources are equally authoritative, why do we separate them?

Why must these be added to the Bible?  Sproul already concedes there is no Scripture which states or even suggests that the Bible alone is the final authority on matter of faith or practice, so why insist upon this "solo" mentality? 

Sproul even states:

In like manner, I’d be content to add as a second infallible and inerrant authority the statements of the Pope when He speaks ex cathedra. First, however, let him raise men from the dead. Second, let us add his words, assuming he would even tell us what they were, to our canon.

We must answer to Sproul with 2 Thes. 2:9-10 again.  Signs and wonders do not a prophet make!  Signs and wonders do not equivocate to one who speaks for God.

Next Sproul echos the same tome which anyone who has been around apologetics at all has seen:

But wait, there’s more. I want an authoritative list, in both instances of what these messages are. Ask someone Orthodox to show you exactly where you can read their infallible tradition and you will receive slippery ooze. Ask someone Roman Catholic for a list of infallible papal or consiliar statements, and you will receive the same.

Now, whereas we do have lists - no pope or council has seen it necessary to have an infallible list of dogmatic teachings.  You can turn to Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Sources of Catholic Dogma) or Dr. Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma as rather exhaustive lists; but let us ask RC Sproul to provide us with the authoritative list of books which should be compiled into what he now calls The Bible!  In asking us to provide such lists, he defeats his own position because Scripture alone does not provide us with the authoritative list of what IS Scripture!  In fact, when on the subject of sola scriptura, as the Protestant final authority, it is a bit of a diversion to throw out a table-turning question to Catholics, or a red herring tactic to divert attention from where sola scriptura lacks even the capability to declare what necessarily comprises the Canon of Sacred Scripture.  On the other hand, Catholicism does not declare a single final authority in all matters.  For some matters, even most, Scripture is sufficient; however Scripture is silent on many matters, especially those involving moral decisions with modern technology, such as cloning and in vitro fertilization.
 
I will add, whether or not the Catholic Church has an infallible list of infallible documents has no bearing on the sola scriptura debate.  I maintain that the Scriptures are inerrant, however I would not say they are infallible.   People come up with fallible interpretations of Scripture all the time - which does not affect the inerrancy of Scripture - but Scripture does not interpret itself and even warns us that Scripture is hard to understand and can be interpreted to ones own destruction (St. Peter speaking of St. Paul's Epistles, 2 Peter 3:16).

Sproul begins to wrap it up here:

Finally, there is this problem. In both instances, Rome and Orthodoxy, you run headlong into the problem of the infinite regress. That is, those who are less strident in their views on tradition, who deny that tradition carries additional content to the Scripture, instead argue that tradition gives an infallible and inerrant interpretation of Scripture. Okay. Where then can we find an infallible and inerrant interpretation of the interpretation? Assuming we could succeed there, of course, we would need an inerrant interpretation of the interpretation of the interpretation. Ad nauseum.

All Sproul provides here is a slippery slope argument.  The fact of the matter is, Scripture itself tells us that the Holy Ghost would be with Jesus' Church until the end of the age.  Did "the age" begin or end in 1517?  No, and if we were to accept it "began" there - then we'd have to also accept that for nearly 1500 years the Holy Ghost was not with His Church - or that His Church did not exist for that period of time.  Either way, it would make the promise of Scripture to be false for "until He returns again" does not exclude that 1500 year period.

And Sproul concludes this article with:

No, the Bible is God’s Word. It is perspicuous, understandable. It says what it means and means what it says. It is attested by the miraculous power of God. And it is all these things, alone. It alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Flee anyone who tells you that more is required to understand, or more is required to obey.

Again, we must remind Sproul of his concession - The Bible does not have specific text that suggests that the Bible alone is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.  Nowhere does it teach that it (the Bible) alone, all by itself, equips us for every good work. Miracles alone are not absolute evidence something comes from God.

In short, not only does Sproul concede this debate from the onset - his rationalizations are proven to be illogical and not competent to stand under criticism.  Anyone who has believed what RC Sproul teaches on this subject should flee from him.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Is True Faith Really Alone?

Sola Fide?

Faith Alone – Is It Really “Alone?”

An Article By:

Scott Windsor

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com

One of the mainstays of Protestantism is the concept of “sola fide.” Two very straight-forward words which translated mean “faith alone.” The stand, foundationally started with Martin Luther, is in opposition to the Church's position that true “saving faith” is never alone. True “saving faith” is always accompanied by good works, the first and foremost of these works is believing. Believing in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior is the foundational work of faith in our lives. That is the Catholic position. Now what Protestant really disagrees with this position? I am not aware of any, yet they have this “doctrine” of “sola fide!”

A reader (who goes by the nickname of "TQuid" on IRC) of this article asked me to change the statement about Luther above. He said:

a correction- “Faith,” wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith(.")

This quote from Luther only serves to prove my point though. It cannot be denied that Luther espoused and headed up the "fight" for sola fide, yet this quote (which TQuid cited only a secondary source to a secondary source, not giving the primary source of the quote) contradicts the "sola" of "sola fide." In fact, this statement would be acceptable to the Catholic. We agree that works do not save, especially not works alone; likewise, faith, if it be alone, does not save. Faith accompanied by works is a "saving faith." As I stated above, I am not aware of any Protestant who, deep down, disagrees with the Catholic position on this, yet we still see "sola fide" as a "battle cry" of apologetics for Protestants. The problem is, it just doesn't add up.

So as to not misrepresent the Protestant position, let's present some Protestant definitions of “sola fide:”

James White:

Sola Fide – faith alone, that is, saving faith, resting solely in the perfection of the work of Jesus Christ in my stead. That is my hope. That is the Good News. Not justification by baptism, then rejustification after committing a mortal sin by sacramental forgiveness, penances, and satisfactions. No merit from good works done in a state of grace so as to receive eternal life.

No, justification is by faith alone, so that it can be by grace alone. That is the Gospel. (White, 151, The Roman Catholic Controversy).

R.C. Sproul:

“justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” (Sproul, 26, Faith Alone).

J.I. Packer:

It was this conflict with the medieval message that occasioned the fivefold "only" in the slogans quoted above. Salvation, said the Reformers, is by faith (man's total trust) only, without our being obliged to work for it; it is by grace (God's free favor) only, without our having to earn or deserve it first; it is by Christ the God-man only, without there being need or room for any other mediatoral agent, whether priest, saint, or virgin; it is by Scripture only, without regard to such unbiblical and unfounded extras as the doctrines of purgatory and of pilgrimages, the relic-cult and papal indulgences as devices for shortening one's stay there; and praise for salvation is due to God only, without any credit for his acceptance of us being taken to ourselves. (http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)

And we cannot forget Martin Luther on the subject of justification by faith:

“articulus stands aut cadentis ecclesiae” – the point on whether the Church stands or falls. (qtd on: http://www.the-highway.com/Justification_Packer.html)

So there we have it in a nutshell, this is the doctrine which makes or breaks the Church, in the eyes of Protestants. One thing that I find a bit interesting with virtually every argument I've seen on the subject of “sola fide” is that it is NEVER alone! We even find apologists arguing for FIVE SOLAS! The term “sola” flies in the face of those boast to have FIVE of them! If it's truly “sola,” then why do they have five?! Sproul sums up most, if not all, Protestant arguments quite succinctly in stating that though “justification is by faith alone, it is not by a faith that is alone.” What I find even more ironic is that few, if any, Protestants see the double-speak of that statement! Is it “alone” or not? If it is by faith alone, then nothing – and we must insist that nothing – stands next to it for justification. But what does Sproul say? “It is not by a faith that is alone.” All in one breath Sproul both affirms and denies “sola” in “sola fide.” More importantly that what Sproul says, what does Scripture say? James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” James goes on to say “For just as the body without the spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26).

Now many Protestant apologists with whom I've debated in the past will try to explain that justification truly is by faith alone, and then join Sproul's double-speak stating it is not a faith that is alone. One recent challenger, known only as “Chris,” tried to explain it by analogy stating:

I was walking along the bridge with my wife when suddenly I saw a man lose his footing. I grabbed his arm and stopped him sliding off. Later he circulated the story "I was saved by Chris alone, however he was not a man who was alone, his wife was there too."
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8276)

The obvious flaw to Chris' analogy is that even though his wife is there with him, she does nothing to save the falling man. Now THAT is Chris' point, right? Yet, where the point fails is when we compare that to faith, or more specifically a “saving faith” we see that “works” are what are “next to” the “saving faith.” Chris has equated his wife to “works” in his analogy, yet in “saving faith” the works are what make “saving faith” a “living faith,” for “faith without works is dead!” To make Chris' analogy complete, if his wife is not there with him, then Chris would be DEAD! If Chris were “dead” then he would not have the capacity to “grab” the falling man's arm and “save” him. Chris' analogy is “fatally flawed.”

From the same forum (the Catholic Debate Forum on Yahoogroups) where Chris makes his argument, I also received this challenge from one, for the sake of this article, I will refer to as “Dr. Jim.” The challenge from Dr. Jim is this:

Tell you what -- find one verse from Paul that says we are
justified by faith AND works and we'll have something.

That's your challenge.

Ready? GO
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/8258)

(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

Hmmm, the word “justification” is not there, but St. Paul is telling Timothy if he “persevere(s) in these things” that he “will ensure salvation...” Clearly we see that St. Paul is telling Timothy that he must DO something or “work” to ensure his salvation.

To the Thessalonians St. Paul said:

2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;

2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.

St. Paul here (and several other places, see below) includes the act or work of “perseverance” with faith and encouragement to “endure.”

Back to the subject of analogies, Jesus Himself uses a parable of the sower, with the seeds being the Word of God, and the ultimate teaching is that those who honestly, with a good heart, do the “work” of holding it, the Word of God, and bearing fruit with it in perseverance. What is the subject of this parable? The subject is the “kingdom of heaven!” (see Luke 8:1, 11-15).

But “Dr. Jim's” challenge was that I show St. Paul using “justified” in combination with “works,” so let's look at Romans 2:

Rom 2:13 “for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified.”

So, you must be a “doer” or one who “works” to be justified!

The case against “sola fide” is so strong, it seems silly that Protestants still attempt to defend the doctrine. Clearly Luther overstated his case in making sola fide the point on which the (Protestant) Church stands or falls, for certainly one who reads the Scriptures objectively can see that saving faith is NEVER alone (James 2) and that throughout the New Testament we're taught perseverance, endurance, and constantly reminded about what we must “do” for our salvation (justification is the process of making one “just” or “right” in the sight of God, which is necessary and a process in which the “end” is either salvation or condemnation).

A point which I have not yet mentioned in this article, but no article in opposition to “sola fide” is complete without is the fact that the ONLY place in ALL of Scripture where “faith” and “alone” are used together is in James 2:24, and that is in NEGATION of the concept of “sola fide.” I will close this article quoting that verse, then follow with many others which mention things we must “DO” in the process of salvation.

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

Scriptural references showing that we are expected to DO something:

Verses which mention we must “persevere” or “perseverance:”

Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.

Rom 2:7 to those who by perseverance in doing good seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life;

Rom 5:3 And not only this, but we also exult in our tribulations, knowing that tribulation brings about perseverance;

Rom 5:4 and perseverance, proven character; and proven character, hope;

Rom 5:5 and hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.

Rom 8:25 But if we hope for what we do not see, with perseverance we wait eagerly for it.

Rom 15:4 For whatever was written in earlier times was written for our instruction, so that through perseverance and the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Rom 15:5 Now may the God who gives perseverance and encouragement grant you to be of the same mind with one another according to Christ Jesus,

Rom 15:6 so that with one accord you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2Co 12:12 The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.

Eph 6:18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints,

Eph 6:19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel,

Eph 6:20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

2Th 1:3 We ought always to give thanks to God for you, brethren, as is only fitting, because your faith is greatly enlarged, and the love of each one of you toward one another grows ever greater;

2Th 1:4 therefore, we ourselves speak proudly of you among the churches of God for your perseverance and faith in the midst of all your persecutions and afflictions which you endure.

1Ti 6:11 But flee from these things, you man of God, and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, perseverance and gentleness.

(2Ti 3:10) Now you followed my teaching, conduct, purpose, faith, patience, love, perseverance,

(2Ti 3:11) persecutions, and sufferings, such as happened to me at Antioch, at Iconium and at Lystra; what persecutions I endured, and out of them all the Lord rescued me!

(1Ti 4:16) Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.

(Tit 2:2) Older men are to be temperate, dignified, sensible, sound in faith, in love, in perseverance.

(2Pe 1:5) Now for this very reason also, applying all diligence, in your faith supply moral excellence, and in your moral excellence, knowledge,

(2Pe 1:6) and in your knowledge, self-control, and in your self-control, perseverance, and in your perseverance, godliness,

(2Pe 1:7) and in your godliness, brotherly kindness, and in your brotherly kindness, love.

(Rev 1:9) I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance which are in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

(Rev 2:2) 'I know your deeds and your toil and perseverance, and that you cannot tolerate evil men, and you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false;

(Rev 2:3) and you have perseverance and have endured for My name's sake, and have not grown weary.

(Rev 2:19) 'I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first.

(Rev 3:10) 'Because you have kept the word of My perseverance, I also will keep you from the hour of testing, that hour which is about to come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

(Rev 13:10) If anyone is destined for captivity, to captivity he goes; if anyone kills with the sword, with the sword he must be killed. Here is the perseverance and the faith of the saints.

(Rev 14:12) Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

What must we DO to be saved?

Act 16:29 And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas,

Act 16:30 and after he brought them out, he said, "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

Act 16:31 They said, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved

Joh 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

Luk 8:11 "Now the parable is this: the seed is the word of God.

Luk 8:12 "Those beside the road are those who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away the word from their heart, so that they will not believe and be saved.

Luk 8:13 "Those on the rocky soil are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no firm root; they believe for a while, and in time of temptation fall away.

Luk 8:14 "The seed which fell among the thorns, these are the ones who have heard, and as they go on their way they are choked with worries and riches and pleasures of this life, and bring no fruit to maturity.

Luk 8:15 "But the seed in the good soil, these are the ones who have heard the word in an honest and good heart, and hold it fast, and bear fruit with perseverance.