"A Sauer Treatment of Chesterton" by Tom

As a fan of G.K. Chesterton, I was interested in James Sauer’s article Chesterton Reformed: A Protestant Interpretation. Although I’m glad to see a renewed interest in Chesterton’s writings, I’m afraid I must disagree with Mr. Sauer’s conclusions. I will attempt to voice my disagreement with his thesis on what I perceive to be his three main points: Firstly, Mr. Sauer’s implication that all that is good in Chesterton is a result of his Protestantism; secondly, that post-Vatican II Catholicism is becoming Protestant without admitting it; thirdly, that Chesterton didn’t understand Protestantism.

Chesterton was influenced by his earlier Protestantism

Mr. Sauer claims that Chesterton had a little Luther in him because he was "enamored by the politics of the underdog." This is an easy claim to make, but no more proves Chesterton’s "latent Protestantism" than it proves his latent feminism. For example: I suppose one day the National Organization of Women will claim that "because of his revolt against the powers that be, the feisty Chesterton must have had a little Emily Pankhurst in him." Chesterton wrote a lot on the fact that progress is not a goal in itself but assumes a goal to progress toward. One can imagine a similar chide from G.K. about feistiness not being a goal but rather what one is feisty about; and on that score, I would say that Luther and Chesterton were very far apart.

Mr. Sauer goes on to conclude that Chesterton’s latent Protestantism is manifest in his belief in democracy, and that "democracy…is a Protestant virtue." As I read on, I felt sure that the next line would be that Socrates was a proto-Protestant. It is ironic that Protestants typically accuse Rome of being too Hellenistic; Mr. Sauer’s charge is that it is not Hellenistic enough. I wouldn’t be too quick to claim that the U.S. is the product of Protestantism; your opponents may respond with a resounding "EXACTLY!" (Just kidding…I think).

Mr. Sauer goes on to assert that Chesterton’s democratic beliefs are evidence of his secret Protestantism bubbling to the surface, and that: "Hierarchical Catholicism is hardly the breeding ground of democracy. Democracy requires pluralistic tolerance" (Mike Servetus might have some input on the "pluralistic tolerance" of Mr. Sauer’s Calvinist tradition; but I guess we all have our skeletons in the closet). "Sed contra," Chesterton would quip, "democracy is for a man’s relations with his neighbor, not with his God." Not to mention that this overlooks the contribution to democracy by many Catholics throughout history. But I suppose that any Catholic who does any good will thereby be turned into a latent Protestant. To imply that all things good are a result of your theological tradition is dubious. One should not claim as a product of one’s theological tradition what is common to all men.

I think that there is one Protestant influence that Chesterton would add to Sauer’s list; Protestantism influenced him to become a Catholic.

Is Catholicism becoming Protestant without admitting it?

Anyone familiar with the Catholic/Protestant debate knows that both sides complain that the other side doesn’t understand their position. I believe, in large part that is true. Now that we’re sitting down and talking about it were finding out that we have more in common than we thought. This is, I believe, why Mr. Sauer thinks that Catholicism has been changing into Protestantism since Vatican II. Since Mr. Sauer focused mostly on the issue of justification, the remainder of this essay will attempt to show that it is not Catholicism that changed its mind on justification, but rather Protestantism; and, in fact, almost as soon as the Reformation began.

Justification

Since the time of the Reformation, Protestants have defined their doctrine of "sola-fide" to mean that justification is a "legal" or "forensic" imputation of Christ’s righteousness onto the sinner without inward transformation. The problem with this, as Chesterton says, is no one really believes it. The same people that talk of "forensic" justification also presuppose inward transformation:

"There is no doubt that it is entirely by the intervention of Christ’s righteousness that we obtain justification before God. This is equivalent to saying that man is not just in himself, but that the righteousness of Christ is communicated to him by imputation, when really he deserves punishment. So we can dismiss the absurd dogma that man is justified by faith because it brings him under the influence of God’s spirit, by whom the sinner is made righteous." (John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11, #23) (emphasis mine).

It’s hard to believe that the same author can also write the following:

Since it were not sufficient duly to perform such acts, were not the mind and heart previously endued with sentiments of justice, judgment, and mercy this is done when the Holy Spirit, instilling his holiness into our souls, so inspired them with new thoughts and affections, that they may justly be regarded as new. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 3, #8) (emphasis mine).

The Catholic position defined at Trent is that we are declared righteous, but also made righteous because we become "partakers of the Divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4). The Catholic position can be summed up as "Divine Sonship." For more on this, please see my essay on justification at:

http://www.catholic-defense.com/justification.htm

The problem that the Catholic has with the Protestant view can be summed up as follows:

1) Protestants must deny that man can produce saving faith on his own if they wish to avoid Pelagianism.

2) In order to produce saving faith, one must be regenerated (or at least "made new," or empowered by God in some fashion).

3) If the sinner is regenerated (or whatever it may be called) in order to have saving faith, how can it then be said that justification doesn’t inwardly change the sinner? The sinner was already inwardly changed in order that he could believe!

Mr. Sauer points to the comments of Avery Dulles as a proof that the Catholic position changed. But the reason that Avery Dulles can speak of agreement is not because the Catholic position changed, but because Protestant talk of forensic justification is nothing more than a sanctimonious bromide.

Predestination

I simply must address Mr. Sauer’s treatment of Chesterton on Predestination. It is perhaps the craftiest verbal slight-of-hand in the whole essay. Sauer quotes Chesterton saying "of the idea of Predestination there are broadly two views; the Calvinist and the Catholic… It is the difference between believing that God knows, as a fact, that I choose the Devil, without my having any choice at all." Sauer goes on to prove quite nicely that the Westminster Confession and the Bible teach that some are predestined to heaven. Very well, I believe it, and so does the Catholic Church. But recall that Chesterton’s remarks were about choosing the Devil, not Heaven; and that is where the debate lies. It is not that Catholics deny that some are predestined to Heaven, but rather that everyone else is predestined to Hell. Chesterton was against the Calvinist belief that, as he put it, "the Calvinist affirms that a man is not judged after death, but rather, before birth."

Did Chesterton understand Protestantism?

If, as Mr. Sauer contends, G.K. didn’t understand Protestantism, who can blame him? He only assumed that the words "imputed, not infused" actually meant imputed, not infused. And then showed how Protestants assume what they claim is impossible to believe – namely infused righteousness. This, I believe, is what Chesterton intuits, though he does not state in technical theological terminology, when he states the quote used by Sauer: "on a great map like the mind of Aquinas, the mind of Luther would be almost invisible." The context of that remark is dealing with Luther’s version of Sola-Fide (yes, believe it or not there is more than one): "The Protestant theology of Martin Luther was a thing that no modern Protestant would be seen dead in a field with; or if the phrase be too flippant, would be specially anxious to touch with a barge pole. That Protestantism was pessimism; it was nothing but bare insistence on the hopelessness of all human virtue, as an attempt to escape Hell (Saint Thomas Aquinas by G.K. Chesterton - Ignatius Press, pg. 194). Given the Protestant habit of claiming forensic justification one moment, and infused righteousness the next, I’m reminded that Mr. Sauer himself remarked: " I am afraid we are examining a pathology."

CHURCH BELIEFS & ISSUES

WHAT THE EARLY CHURCH BELIEVED

Biblical quotations on this web site are either from the King James Version or the Douay-Rheims Version of the Bible.

©1997-2005 Chris Tesch.  This Web site first loaded on July 10, 1997.
Domain name - www.catholic-defense.com secured April 5, 1999.
Written permission is needed to copy any portion of this web site.  All rights reserved.