"Justification: Is The Debate
Justifiable?" by Tom
"And this is intended to help us do that which according to the Ten
Commandments we ought to do . . . For if we could by our own powers keep the Ten
Commandments as they are to be kept, we would need nothing further, neither the Creed nor
the Lord's Prayer." Martin Luther i
Since the "Joint
Declaration on Justification" and "Evangelicals and Catholics Together," I
have followed the prolific amount of materials that have been churned out in recent years
with interest.It seems to me that there is
an incredible amount of obfuscation going around.There
is no shortage of well-written works on the subject-and certainly no shortage of
experts-there are, however, experts that are not speaking according to their expertise at
all; they are following a preconceived psychological agenda, which has as its main
objective disagreement with the Catholic Church at all costs.
There is no shortage of
things for Protestants and Catholics to disagree about, so it would seem advantageous to
limit our squabbles to things that we in fact do disagree on.I am not, of course, suggesting that we compromise
the truth and settle for "let's just get along Christianity;" I am saying that
there are some who are continually trying to manufacture problems that are not there.I am not attacking Protestants in general-I have
many theologically astute Protestant friends who are models of Christian faith and virtue
far beyond myself, and I mean them no disrespect.Nor
do I intend to sling mud on the Reformers, with which I can empathize in many ways.I am addressing those apologists who seem to
operate on the presupposition that the highest goal of theology is to be categorically
obstinate toward the Catholic Church; and those - whether Protestant or Catholic - who
seem to have a need to have their opponent's position contain no validity whatsoever.
What Went Right With The Reformation: Grace Alone
I believe that when the
Reformers developed their doctrine of justification, their goal was to put renewed
emphasis on the fact that man is saved completely by the grace of God and not by any
effort of man that originates from innate human abilities.In my opinion, that is an eminently worthy goal and the Reformation is to be
commended for it.Many Catholics
mischaracterize the Reformers as being too lazy to face the struggles of the Christian
life, so they invented "faith alone" as an easy way out.This is patent falsehood.The Reformers had as their guiding principle the
unsearchable transcendence of an awesome God.This
is why many Protestants - especially the Reformed - find the Catholic Church's sacraments,
meritorious works, devotion to Mary, and a host of other tenants of the Catholic faith so
repugnant; they want to make it clear that salvation is not reciprocity between God and
man, as among equals.As such, Calvin's
"Soli Deo Gloria" is strikingly similar in its motivating principal to St. John
of the Cross's "Dark Night of the Soul," in which all is abandoned and counted
as nothing in comparison to union with God.The
soul, for St. John of the Cross - like Calvinist architecture and worship - is desolate
and stripped of all consolation so that it can desire nothing but the unfathomable God.
The Reformed, in
particular, are quick to defend the sovereignty of God in salvation and that everything is
for the glory of God; they - ironically even more so than Lutherans - seem to be
ultra-sensitive when it comes to sniffing out "work righteousness."At the same time they are also concerned to
maintain that the works of sanctification are done as a result of the Holy Spirit's work
in us.Puritans such as Jonathan Edwards
described a sanctification that would make the greatest saints shake in their boots.Protestantism began as an attempt to emphasize
that God is all and man is nothing.In the
Puritans it ends in a moralism much more rigid than their Catholic counterparts, and the
movement that sought to criticize Catholics for work-righteousness ends up criticizing
them for laxity.
Certainly it cannot be
argued that the Reformed believe in "dead faith," as exemplified by John Calvin:
"We admit that when
God reconciles us to himself by the intervention of the righteousness of Christ . . . so
that he dwells in us by means of his Holy Spirit . . . It thus becomes our leading desire
to obey his will, and in all things advance his glory only." ii
Given the above quote it
is difficult to understand how this cannot be called "infused righteousness."
But even if popular
Catholic practice had degenerated, "grace alone" was already defined Catholic
dogma from the Council of Orange in 529, taught by St. Augustine of Hippo and St. Thomas
Aquinas, and reaffirmed at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century.So what was the problem?
The problem that the
Catholic Church had with the Protestant formulation of justification is not salvation by
grace, or even the use of the expression "faith alone" when it is meant in the
sense that it is more than intellectual assent only and includes hope and charity, but
rather the Reformers' insistence that justification is a "legal,"
"forensic" imputation of Christ's righteousness to our "account."When Protestants say our salvation is by grace
alone, the reason Catholics are not amazed is because we already agree.Similarly, when Protestants say that all our works
of sanctification are God's work in us, we also agree; they are produced by grace, not
innate human abilities (Galatians 2:20, Philippians 2:12-13, et al).
What Went Wrong With The Reformation: Extrinsic Justice
From the time of the
Reformation to the present, Protestants have been insistent that justification is
declarative only:
"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." iii
The Catholic Church
affirms that the unjustified person can do nothing to merit justification, and that it is
a free and unmerited gift because of Christ's work alone.The problem that the Catholic has with the Protestant view is that if justification
is imputed, not infused, how could I produce a "saving faith" by my own efforts?If it is the work of the Spirit in me, how is that
not infused?
Protestants believe
regeneration changes the believer, not justification.Given that to be the case, would it not make more sense for Protestants to argue
their case for justification in the following way: "We also believe that the sinner
is inwardly made righteous/just, but we are saying that the inward righteousness occurs in
regeneration, not justification-which, by the way, happens at the same time."You can call the inward change whatever you wish -
"justification," "regeneration," or chop suey for all I care - the
point is that it happens.We can argue
forever about what word to use, but is that not a bit silly when we clearly agree in
substance?
In an article I recently
read in a Reformed journal, the author, not surprisingly, castigated Catholics and even
some evangelicals for believing in "joint venture" salvation: "if I do my
part, God will do His."Then to my
amazement he offered the following as an exposition of orthodox doctrine:
"In regeneration the
understanding is illumined by the Holy Spirit . . . And the will itself is not only
changed by the Spirit, but it is also equipped with faculties so that it wills and is able
to do the good of its own accord." iv
So what is the man in the
pew to make of the claim that we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit and that the belief that
we are indwelt by the Holy Spirit is an "absurd dogma?"
So fearful are the
Reformed that a good work might be attributed to man - even after grace - that they forget
that salvation itself is a work of a man: the God-man.The Protestant position pits the work of man against the work of God without
stopping to think that in Christ the two things are in fact one.When man becomes adopted into Christ he shares His
sonship and so shares His redemptive work through the power of being recreated in Christ.
The Protestant Problem: Ockhamism
Protestantism has
historically charged Catholicism with infecting the gospel with human philosophy.But it is not a question of who does philosophy
and who does not, but rather who does good philosophy and who does not.In his book Spirit and Forms of Protestantism,
Louis Boyer argues that it was the influence of William of Ockham that lead Luther to
develop his doctrine of extrinsic justification.Boyer
argues that Ockhamism is a corrosive centrifugal force that causes the decay of the
positive elements of Protestantism (i.e., grace alone and God's sovereignty), and that a
full flowering of the positive aspects if the Reformation can only take place within the
Catholic Church.
The traces of Ockhamism
can be seen in the way that God is treated as extrinsic to His creation.Ockham believed that articles of faith are not
demonstrable by reason but only taken as true because revelation says so.The moral order is only an arbitrary decision on
the part of God, and sin and grace do not change the person, but only God's attitude
toward the person.This makes the act of
faith is for its own sake, for why should God require faith at all?If the person is not changed, but only
God's attitude toward the person, Calvinist predestination naturally follows with its
doctrine of God's sovereignty being expressed as an arbitrary power: God saves some and
actively damns others for no reason other that He wants to flex His muscles.The idea that God would charge His creation with
supernatural life is blasphemy yet this is the whole point of the Incarnation and
Resurrection.Protestantism suffers from a
disconnect on this point and the Reformers fell prey to the most defective part of the
scholasticism that they sought to shed.In
Christ, God enters time and history to reveal to us the truth about our lives and the
human person.Any philosophy that claims the
name Christian must not fear to be grounded in time and history sanctified by God.Protestantism sees history as an obstacle to be
overcome rather than an instrument of revelation-one must overcome history and the
obstacle of the Church in order to reach the "real" Jesus.
The view of St. Thomas
Aquinas and Catholic theology is that the natural law is a reflection of the Divine
nature, and that both are suited to human nature because it shows the human person the
path of true fulfillment and happiness.The
natural law and human nature cannot be separated from reference to the Divine nature as it
has its foundation in it.But to speak of the
"Divine nature" as informing the natural law presupposes that it is not
arbitrary, but rather reflects something of the nature of God Himself that is to be
assimilated by man in some way in order to bring about his true happiness; and that is
where the debate lies.Reformed theologian
John Murray writes: "In modern theology it is sometimes said that men by adoption
come to share in Christ's Sonship and thus enter into the divine life of the trinity.This is grave confusion and error." vIf that is true, then
what is the meaning of life?If our end is
in something other than God, haven't we only changed gods?Ockham's view that God's law for man is completely arbitrary causes a divorce that
separates the Divine nature from the fulfillment of man's longing.But what can be said to take its place?If the destiny of man is not to become like God in
some way but is merely intended to jump through hoops set up by God for no real reason
than to exercise His power, what meaning can really be attached to human life at all?How can a Divine legalism satisfy?Our hearts are indeed restless until they rest in
Him, not a jurisprudence short of Him.
Protestants want to stress
that the "machinery" of sacraments, devotions, and prayers to saints, etc.,
cannot replace the interior and personal relationship with Christ.This is a noble and worthy concern, and any
Catholic who thinks otherwise would do well to heed the Protestant warning.But it is a false dichotomy to pit sacrament
against faith in Christ; the former necessarily presupposes the latter.The Protestant warning is good as far as it goes,
but it errs when it goes to the extreme of denying any concrete, objective expression of
grace.If Ockham was right, and his belief
is taken to its end, it is no wonder that Protestantism has a hard time with sacraments,
for they necessarily imply an understanding of grace as infused.For Ockham and the Protestantism that followed
him, faith becomes something completely subjective, and the relationship between God and
the believer something that is not subject to objective criteria or expression; thus no
authoritative Church, no meaningful doctrine of the communion of saints, the idea that
creation/matter can convey grace (sacrament) becomes repugnant (or is paid lip service at
best), etc.The church becomes an
afterthought, or even a hindrance to "real faith," and ecclesiology a virtually
indefinable term.Calvinism in particular,
became faith that is completely ethereal, and baptism and the Lord's Supper appear to be
added as an afterthought to the Calvinist system simply because the Bible's teaching on it
is to plain to ignore.It is difficult to see
how any pretense of a sacrament can really fit into the philosophy of Calvinism; in the
vast scheme of things, they seem cramped and artificial."Sacrament" became an external display believed to be devoid of real
power.
The real question for the
Calvinist is how do you really know that you are regenerated?What objective sign is there?The answer to this question is invariably an
appeal to a subjective knowledge completely and purposely divorced from necessity of the
community of faith or any other tangible vehicle of grace.Protestantism replaced the Catholic belief in objective vehicles of grace with the
idea that the sacraments are no more than a psychological assistance to a "true
faith" that is interior and subjective.In
the same way it made the Church an organization that was not divinely empowered by God to
be His instrument on earth, but an afterthought that is useful as, again, a psychological
assistance to "true faith."Instead
of seeing the sacraments and the Church as the work of God, they are the work of man,
having no more efficacy than what the individual bestows on them.Man, under the pretense of following a
"Biblical" model, builds the Church; for if God, not man, builds the church,
then it needs not to be "rebuilt," and its doctrinal "mistakes"
corrected and reversed.As far as a theology
of grace and ecclesiology is concerned, Protestantism turned wine into water.
Faith is a necessary part
of the knowledge of truth and grounds us in community with other persons.I have never seen Australia with my own eyes, but
I believe that it exists on faith because others have told me so.Knowledge must include faith since it is
impossible for any person to verify everything that he knows and takes for granted.Therefore, knowledge cannot be obtained without
the context of the community of persons-in theological language, the Church.To put it simply, Christian faith is not possible
without the Church, which cannot then be an afterthought of a "sola scriptura"
construct; scripture is part of the Church's treasury, not the other way around.To be sure, Protestants will affirm the value and
necessity of the Church, but are quick to point out that the Church must be subservient to
the scriptures.This begs the question how do
we know if the Church is not in line with the scriptures?This reveals that the individual is the judge of the Church, which is therefore
smaller than himself.If one rejects belief
in a Church that God guarantees to not go astray, then one is left to canonize his own
intelligence in discerning the meaning of revelation and becomes his own infallible pope.How can we arrive at knowledge of the list of
books that belong in the Bible by a "sola scriptura," "private
judgment" approach?The radical
individualism inherent in Protestant theology cannot be anything but a corrosive influence
on faith and reason alike.
If the individual bestows
onto the church an authority of which he is the real possessor, then Protestant Churches
are ever destined to become either loose anarchical federations that are mere worship
centers devoid of real doctrinal content, or centered around an authority whose
charismatic personality becomes that center of gravity and source of binding doctrine (so
much for private judgment).This recurring
attempt to impose a pastor's own subjective school of thought on his congregation-the
members of which must make their own judgment in agreement with, and subservient to,
his-leads to further breakups.The Protestant
who goes to Church to receive the "Word of God" instead receives a steady diet
of his particular pastor's pet devotions and interpretations.The sovereignty of God manifest by objective
sacraments is replaced by an anthropomorphism of "pastor worship"; the exact
opposite of the Reformation's intention.The
true sovereignty of God can only be maintained when it is continuously uttered by Him
through the objective reality of sacrament and the Church as the incarnation extended
through time, rather than a "church" that is of human construct because it is no
more than a deduction from various scriptural texts.Why would a church of human construction deserve our assent of faith, when faith,
by definition, is something that is above us, not constructed by us?
The "Word of
God" also becomes extrinsic in that it is exclusively identified with the Bible alone
(sola scriptura) because, once again, it is feared that any other manifestation injures
God's sovereignty and exclusivity.The end
result is, once again, that there is currently no real "incarnation" of the word
(other than the Bible), and therefore no real possibility of God's interaction among men.The "Word" becomes inaccessible - not
because the human faculties cannot read it - but because it cannot really become embodied
and alive in the world here and now; it cannot jump off the page (as in the Church being
the extension of the incarnation through time).
The Protestant experiment
began as an attempt to condemn man's vain attempt to reach God on his own, but in effect,
made it impossible for God to reach man. It makes for nice accoutrements of piety to talk
about retrieving true faith from the pollution of human philosophy; but unless you go in
for Gnosticism and Docetism, God did not become a workman in Galilee to insulate us from
what we are by nature, but to baptize our nature.It
all depends on your point of view as to what you're going to call philosophy and
revelation, for my atheist friends tell me that Christianity as a whole is a product of
modified Platonism.I suppose from their
perspective it is ironic that Protestants call Catholics too Hellenistic when they say all
Christians are too Hellenistic.Protestants
are suspicious of talk of substance and accidence; they say that it is blasphemy to have
God change wine into His blood.But the
Atheist says it is blasphemy to have God change water into wine.
Reverse . . . philosophy???
On several occasions I
have had the opportunity to hear Dr. Ralph McInerny speak on what, if I have understood
him correctly, he believes is a reversal in the orientation of philosophical inquiry.He has said on those occasions that René
Descartes turned philosophy on its head by his short and seemingly harmless phrase:
"cogito, ergo sum".According to
McInerny (again assuming I understand him correctly) previous - and correct - philosophy
assumed that the world had meaning that could be ascertained by the common sense of the
average man; that everyone knows things about reality.The role of philosophy was to deepen this understanding.The break that occurred with Descartes was that
this order was reversed and philosophy was not to be the servant of reality, but rather
its inventor.Modern philosophy said, in
effect: "that may be true in practice, but how is it in theory?"
If the "glue" of
Medieval European society - Christian faith - becomes a source of strife and animosity
rather than human solidarity, is it no wonder that the rationalist philosophers sought to
relegate faith to the realm of personal utility, or abolish it altogether and replace it
with reason alone?Is it only coincidental
that Luther's insistence on justification being brought about by a firm belief of being
justified seems similar to modern philosophy's creation of reality from one's own head?If I am to be autonomous within my religion, why
may I not be autonomous without it?
The traces of Ockham are
not only present in Protestantism, but in modern philosophy as well.Etienne Gilson writes:
"But, nevertheless,
it would be just as great a mistake not to quote Hume in relation to William of Ockham,
for there is a close affinity between their philosophical doctrines . . . Having expelled
from the mind of God the intelligible world of Plato. Ockham was satisfied that no
intelligibility could be found in any one of God's works . . . Instead of being an eternal
source of that concrete order of intelligibility and beauty, which we call nature,
Ockham's God was expressly intended to relieve the world of the necessity of having any
meaning of its own . . .. more than that, he was a great publicist whose political
doctrines, deeply rooted in his theology, were dangerously shaking the lofty structure of
mediaeval Christendom.As a philosopher,
however, it was Ockham's privilege to usher into the world what I think is the first known
case of a new intellectual disease."vi
In my discussions with,
and reading of, Reformed apologists, I have often wondered about this possible connection
in that they will always attempt to defend their position (i.e. their interpretation of
scripture) by appealing - at least as a pretense - only to scripture.Now I certainly do not question the authority and
inerrancy of scripture, but when it is a question of correct interpretation, how can the
issue be resolved by an appeal exclusively to the very scripture whose interpretation is
the whole question?If I say that their
interpretation is not logical, I am met with a presumption that reason is defective and
invalid anyway (at least the reason of anyone that does not agree with them) and, in
effect, cannot really be used to determine the meaning of the passage in question.This effectively makes the "Word of God"
inaccessible to us, and results in a faith that is completely manufactured out of one's
own head.If reason is rejected, at least
ostensively, as a tool of interpretation, how are we to guard against making the text say
anything at all, even the most wild concoctions imaginable?
Now those same apologists
will claim the perspicuity of scripture, and that examination of the grammar, etc. leads
to correct interpretation.In the words of
one prominent Reformed apologist: "We are free to interpret the text, but not to
misinterpret it."But that is the whole
question: what is "misinterpretation?"This
canonizes the human reason it seeks to deny because it means that one must be a classical
language scholar, expert theologian, and historian in order to have any pretense of not
"misinterpreting."Those who are
not "experts" need to submit to the teachings of those who are more
knowledgeable as an authoritative magisterium, and private judgment becomes a meaningless
term.Ironic that a movement that started in
order to put scripture into everyone's hands, ends by removing it from everyone's heads.If we use words like "Biblical" and
"in the Greek . . ." we can avoid - by verbal slight of hand - the fact that we
are an authoritative magisterium, and maintain the Reformation bromide of scripture alone.
What Did Trent Say?
I find it unfortunate that
many Protestants only read the canons of the sixth session of Trent from secondary sources
that are themselves only doing enough research to find "ammo."They therefore miss the underlying theme of
Trent's teaching on justification and remove the canons from their proper setting within
the overarching theme of the sixth session: Divine Sonship.
The Council of Trent
defined justification thus:
" . . . a translation
from that state in which man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace and
of the adoption of the sons of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our
Saviour." vii
Does God actually
communicate His nature to His children and empower them to be in fact what He declares
them to be, or does He bestow a title on us that does not correlate to what we are in
substance?The Catholic position is that God
communicates the divine life to His children so they might grow and mature and image Him.I submit that Protestants also believe that, but
insist otherwise in order to maintain the Reformation bromide of forensic justice.When one catches them off guard and not in the
"refute the Catholic position at all costs" mode, Protestants affirm that they
believe it when they speak of being conformed to the image of Christ, and being indwelt by
the Holy Spirit.
"If any one saith,
that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that
they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified,
by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus
Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life,
and the attainment of that eternal life, - if so be, however, that he depart in grace, -
and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema." viii
I counted three times in
this passage where the Fathers of Trent stated that the work in question was:
1) "perform[ed]
through the grace of God."
2) "whose living
member he [the justified person] is."
3) "that he depart in
grace."
This is hardly the work of
someone who is operating on his own innate human abilities.As mentioned earlier, it is unfortunate that many people read these canons out of
the context of the entire sixth session; this canon cannot be read apart from the
understanding stated earlier in chapter 16:
"Thus, neither is our
own justice established as our own as from ourselves. . . for that justice which is called
ours, because that we are justified from its being inherent in us, that same is (the
justice) of God, because that it is infused into us of God, through the merit of Christ. .
. nevertheless God forbid that a Christian should either trust or glory in himself, and
not in the Lord, whose bounty towards all men is so great, that He will have the things
which are His own gifts be their merits." ix
As taught by the Council
of Orange, all our works - including faith - are the result of a prior grace, not of our
own innate human abilities.Is this not also
what Luther himself must have meant in the quote at the top of this essay?
What Does The Bible Teach?
2 Peter 1:3-4 tells
us we "participate in the divine nature."1
John 3:1:"How great is the love the
Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God!And that is what we are!"John 1:12-13 "to become children of
God" and "born of God."Galatians
2:20:"I no longer live, but Christ
lives in me."Romans 8:14-17
"spirit of sonship" and "co-heirs with Christ."If this is the case, then salvation is not just
forgiveness, but empowerment by God to be instruments of redemption.Of course, all that we are is from start to
finish the work of Christ in us (again, Galatians 2:20).God forgives us, but he also empowers us to be his
children and image him.Protestants do not
like the language of "participating" in our redemption, but every Protestant
that prays for someone else is doing just that.Thus,
Protestant practice proves Catholic doctrine.
I have read countless
books that go to great lengths to show that the Bible declares a given subject to be
righteous - or wicked, as the case may be - and that declaration does not change the
person in fact.But despite the seemingly
infinite amount of ink spilled on the subject, none of the examples necessitates that the
given subject is not in fact what God declares him to be.And the imparting of grace through regeneration, which, according to Reformed
theology, is at the point of justification anyway, does in fact make the person what he is
declared to be.
Conclusion
In an email exchange I had
with a Reformed Baptist, he wrote the following while explaining 1 Corinthians 3:15:
"The more areas of your life you surrender to Christ, the more God, through the Holy
Spirit, will do His works through you, and the greater your rewards will be in
heaven."What can this possibly mean, if
not that our cooperation with grace merits (or receives if you prefer) an increase of
righteousness/justification?Protestants say
that our works of sanctification show whether or not we were justified in fact.How can works of sanctification impinge on our
justification at all given the insistence of Protestant theology to the contrary?Most Protestants say that works are only a fruit
of salvation and not an increase of righteousness but then say that our sanctification is
for determining what degree of heavenly glory we will receive.What is the difference?This is exactly what Trent was getting at when it
said that our works done in grace merit an increase of justification.When a person says that "justification"
does not work an inward change, but the "regeneration" that happens
simultaneously does, how can anyone think that he is not just obfuscating in order to find
an excuse to disagree?
It is impossible to
catalog the plethora of examples from the New Testament that speak of our judgment
according to our works.Protestants want to
stress that this is not speaking of an unjustified person but a person who has already
been justified.We agree!Protestants want to stress as well that those
works are not the product of innate human abilities but the work of God in us.Once again, we agree!Protestants want to stress that those works are
not the cause of our initial justification but are the cause of our "degree of
heavenly glory."And once again, we
agree; Catholics call this an increase of justification.
Ironically, in being so
jealous to protect the sovereignty of God in redemption, Protestantism's doctrine of the
impossibility of any good inherent in man, even after grace, effectively destroys any
possibility of man having any relationship with God at all.In order to protect God's (read: fragile) sovereignty, His creature must be smashed
into dust.If Christian theology must, as
some contemporary Protestant apologists maintain, make the centerpiece of the gospel a
concept of justification that is not only conspicuously missing from all the historic
creeds of the Church prior to Protestant confessions, self contradictory, and degrading to
the dignity of man and of God because it does not allow God to bestow His glory generously
on man, then is not the price of maintaining such an idea too high?The claim that "the Bible teaches it"
takes the question back a step but does nothing to escape the question: "how do we
know the Bible teaches it?"Answer:"Because interpreting it this way supports
our theology, of course."Never mind
that such an interpretation is illogical, which is the only possible meaning of trying to
understand the text at all, isn't it?If an
interpretation is unreasonable, isn't that a good reason to conclude that we have
misinterpreted it?
The "Joint
Declaration on Justification" and "Evangelicals and Catholics Together"
are, to me, encouraging signs that we might start listening to each other and try to
understand what is legitimate in the other side's position, and candidly criticizing what
is illegitimate.By all means, let us
wrangle-it-out over what divides us, but let's not invent divisions that are not really
there in order to save face.If we admit that
there is a high degree of agreement on justification, there will still be plenty to fight
about-the goal posts have indeed moved since the reformation-but we all must take
seriously the words of our Lord "that they may be one."
i
Martin Luther, Large Catechism, second part (on the Creed).
ii
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 14, # 9.Emphasis added.
iii
John Calvin, Institutes of Christian Religion, Book 3, Chapter 11, #23. Emphasis
mine.
iv Second
Helvetic Confession, Chapter 9.
v John
Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, pg. 134.
vi
Etienne Gilson, The Unity of Philosophical Experience, pg. 68.
vii
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter IV.
viii
Council of Trent, Session 6, Canon xxxii.Emphasis
mine.
ix
Council of Trent, Session 6, Chapter 16.Emphasis
mine.
