Skip to main content
I have a friend who, God bless him, doesn't handle honest questions and debate very well. I've annoyed him severely on 2 separate occasions. I should have known. But it wasn't my fault. We were listening to that great new hymn, "In Christ Alone" when we came to this line: "Till on that cross as Jesus died/The wrath of God was satisfied." And I couldn't stop myself, saying, "That's the only line that gives me the slightest hesitation." And then there we were, discussing atonement theology and soteriology. The next line in fact makes even less sense in Reformed theology: "For every sin on Him was laid..." And we talked about whether it was fitting for the God who is Love to require obedience that he does not, and will not, enable by his grace. Because, of course, in Reformed theology, the atonement of Christ is effectual for the elect only. And since the elect are brought through the ordo salutis monergistically without cooperation on their parts, (at least until after justification) we have a whole host of interesting problems with A) the apparent meaning of many Scripture passages; and 2) whether or not this makes us determinists in the philosophical sense, and how that affects the character of God in our view. (For we dare not say God is the author of sin.) Catholic theology as I understand it (limited, ahem) makes a distinction between sanctifying grace/justifying grace and actual grace, with actual grace preceding the justifying grace, with the purpose of moving the will. This actual grace, given to all in sufficient but not equal measure, can be resisted, contra Reformed theology. (And the distinction in kinds of grace is not made in Reformed theology. One will hear of "special grace" unto salvation for the elect, and "common grace" for all without exception in Reformed theology, but the difference is that common grace is not meant to be understood as leading to a grace which justifies; to borrow a Scriptural phrase, God's grace either "makes you alive with Christ" [paraphrase of Eph. 2:5] or it "leaves you without excuse" [based on Romans 1:20].) "Union with Christ" is the buzzword in Reformed theology, which helps explain all the parts of the order of salvation without having to make a bloody mess of the Scriptural text by forcing it into systematic categories at every point. And it has been a gift from God Himself for many people trying to understand and progress in their sanctification. However, it strongly implies participation by its very nature to some, and is thus rejected. It implies theosis. Even for those who accept the phrase and some of its implications, we then must answer the question of how this squares with a view of justification that is 1) forensic/legal in nature; 2) once-occurring and unchanging; and 3) monergistic. No one could fairly accuse the best of Reformed theology of being unconcerned about sanctification or cavalier about sin. In fact, on a personal note, worship at any of the churches where I've been a member; "lax" is not a word I'd use. BUT...given statements about the seriousness of sin and the necessity of repentance, one cannot help but think that something has to give. God will not be mocked, nor will the perishable inherit the imperishable, so either our formulations of justification must be "nuanced" to fit with the reality of daily experience and the reality of apostasy, or they are plain wrong in the first place. My friend I spoke of earlier asked a good question, even granting Catholic notions of grace: "What then, ultimately, is the difference between me who accepts the gospel, and someone else who rejects it?" He continued, (paraphrase) "You're forced to say there is something good about me apart from saving grace which makes the difference." The Catholic helpfully interjects that grace changes a man and allows him to participate, so that his justice is truly his, in some real sense. My friend concluded thus: "I don't know; to me, either God does it, or it doesn't happen. You can't accept or reject something if you are dead." Alive or dead, no in between. I must admit, it is compelling when framed thus. What is having actual grace, but not sanctifying grace in Catholic theology? Being mostly dead? (Ha Ha.) If the Reformed notions of grace and justification can lead to presumption, the same Catholic notions lead to a complete lack of comfort in Christ, it would seem. [You won't know until you try.--ed.] Whose side are you on anyway?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un