We hear in recent days that justification by faith alone is really about emphasis rather than exclusion; that is, the co-operative life of sanctification is no less important than the recognition and celebration of Christ's work for us. Once again, I grant without hesitation that most Christian commentators will agree with the Bible and the Catholic Church that a holy life is important and even necessary. My point has always been that it is absent dogmatically and systemically because it has to be. If the damage inflicted by the Fall is so grave that man by nature is depraved in every part of himself, if he is totally unable to do any good for himself spiritually apart from God's unitary intervention, if in fact Fr. Luther's entire contention was that the Catholic theologians of the day had undersold the damage of the Fall, then by definition, any participation by such a being is ancillary at best, and is not necessary. The man's redemption was accomplished in this view utterly outside him by Christ, so much so that he is covered by the righteousness of Christ; it is not poured into him; he is simul justus et peccator, in the famous phrase. How could God threaten consequences against a being so helpless that he has already acquitted him by a boundless irrevocable mercy? We're talking about the soteriological necessity of sanctification and participation within a system of soteriological monergism; there is no need to reaffirm a commitment to holy living; the end result is not in dispute. What is in question is how a God who has declared a man entirely innocent by *faith could even see the corruption that remains, much less require, on pain of punishment up to and including the loss of communion with Him, that the innocent man root it out. Why? He is innocent, his crimes forgotten.
We agree that the Bible says God will judge a man by what he really is, by his fruit. The problem is, your system does not agree. Your system says God pardons a wicked man, whether he changes or not. You may say that the change must necessarily take place; well and good. But if the man was helpless before, why would the pattern change? If the dead faith we decry could not actually exist, why does the Lord say, "Many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord,...' and I will say, "Away from me, workers of iniquity, I never knew you"?
But if agape is the difference between a Christian's faith and the knowledge of demons, if it is a disposition of the will, as much within my power by supernatural assistance as choosing to write this post or not, then it would appear that the Council Fathers at Trent had been correct.
But in fact, this has never been about re-emphasizing the objective redemption of Christ against those who would replace it with self-effort; it's about the authority and the terms by which that redemption is applied.
We agree that the Bible says God will judge a man by what he really is, by his fruit. The problem is, your system does not agree. Your system says God pardons a wicked man, whether he changes or not. You may say that the change must necessarily take place; well and good. But if the man was helpless before, why would the pattern change? If the dead faith we decry could not actually exist, why does the Lord say, "Many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord,...' and I will say, "Away from me, workers of iniquity, I never knew you"?
But if agape is the difference between a Christian's faith and the knowledge of demons, if it is a disposition of the will, as much within my power by supernatural assistance as choosing to write this post or not, then it would appear that the Council Fathers at Trent had been correct.
But in fact, this has never been about re-emphasizing the objective redemption of Christ against those who would replace it with self-effort; it's about the authority and the terms by which that redemption is applied.
Comments