Posted on 01/24/2009 3:23:40 PM PST by NYer
From Christianity Today, an interview with noted Evangelical author Charles Colson, who has played an instrumental role, with Fr. Richard Neuhaus, in the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" initiatives:
How will Neuhaus' death affect Evangelicals and Catholics together?It's a terrible setback because Cardinal Avery Dulles died a month before Neuhaus died. It was like a double-barreled blow. They were the principal leaders on the Catholic side of the dialogue. In some respects, those are two giants of the faith that you can't replace. But God in his sovereignty, his providence, knows exactly what he's doing.
The timing of Neuhaus's and Dulles's deaths is really significant when you realize that Pope Benedict on November 19 in what was otherwise a routine audience in St. Peter's square, gave a homily on justification and fully embraced the position that Evangelicals and Catholics Together had taken [in the 1997 document, "Gift of Salvation"]. He didn't identify it as such, but that's what he did.
Eleven years after that document was written, the Pope, the head of the church, concluded his homily by saying Luther was right, so long as you don't exclude charity, that is love, and the works that flow from love. Which of course none of us does.
Whoa. Hold on a second. First, since when did the Pope take his directives on soteriology from the ECT documents, as significant or meaningful as they might be? Secondly, the qualification—"so long as"—is very, very important. And if Colson is saying that he, as an Evangelical, believes that justification involves charity and works done in love, well, then welcome to Catholic Soteriology 101. A key question is: what did Luther really believe about the relationship between faith and charity? Benedict XVI rightly notes this, indirectly, when he states,
For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14). [emphasis added]
One of several reasons this makes me a bit huffy is that it's not at all evident (far from it!) that what an Evangelical such as Colson believes about justification, faith, and charity is what Luther believed. For example, Luther posited a form of "extrinsic justification," that is, justification is an external action, not an internal transformation. And that, of course, is opposed to the Catholic understanding of justification and the one apparently held by Colson. Unfortunately, Colson, in my opinion, makes matters even worse:
Do the Catholics in ECT right now take the same position on justification as Neuhaus and Dulles?
Oh yes. There are probably 12 to 13 other Catholic [leaders] who hold that position. And now of course the Pope holds it, so it almost doesn't matter who else holds it, in the way the Catholic Church is structured.
All shifts that take place in Catholicism happen very gradually. Vatican II was an exception. That's not the way in which theological development occurs within the catholic communion. It occurs in a gradual process in which the pope, and in this case, a cardinal and a couple priests see a way to express something differently and they would argue that there's no change.
Of course, if you compare it with Trent, there's a profound change. But they would see it as the development of doctrine. And if it's contrary to some church council — as this was, clearly — then nothing happens immediately.
Cardinal [Edward] Cassidy took ["The Gift of Salvation"] back to the Vatican in 1997 and was teaching it to the bishops. It sort of percolated through the church, and the Pope, who — significantly — was an Augustinian, picked it up. And then a decade later, it ended up in the catechism. That's just the way change occurs in the Catholic Church.
I don't, unfortunately, have time to dig into this very far, but here are a couple of problems: First, to repeat, the position that Colson takes as his own and (now) the Pope's, is hardly new or unique. It is the belief that justification involves faith intimately bound up with love and hope, (which result in good words accomplished by grace), as befitting the theological virtues given by the Holy Spirit. I'm glad Colson agrees with that view, but it's not evident at all that this view is the same as Luther's; quite the opposite.
Secondly, the statment about Trent is puzzling. After all, Trent stated:
For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. (Session 6, chapter VII)
How, I wonder, is this different in substance from what Benedict said and what the Catechism say? The Catechism, for the record, states:
Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (par 1991)
Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (par 1992)
In short, Colson's comments are puzzling. Have I missed something?
With both Dulles and Neuhaus gone, it looks like Carl Olson has taken on the daunting task of scrutinizing Charles Colson’s statements. Feel free to add your own.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm . . .
So . . . is this a faint glimmer of hope that Scripture is right for both sides?
The Church has never changed it’s position on this. Chuck seems to indicate that it has. This Pope brings nuance and understanding as well as strength and vigor.
Having been a member of both Catholic and Protestant churches in my life I have come to realise that there IS very little difference in the way both churches see this issue in reality - it is only retorical language and bullheadedness (sorry but mainly on the part of some Protestants) that keeps the churches apart on this.
Mel
Colson is a bit like John Wesley: he doesn’t know if he stand on the Calvinist or the Arminian side of the theological divide. Good man, unsubtle theologian.
I think he straddles the middle which can be an uncomfortable position LOL - yes a good man never the less!
Mel
Thank you!
I'll try to get this read, and Scott Clark's piece reread, sometime today, to comment upon them.
Even more pertinent now, under the Obama Administration.
BTW - I gave up watching the msm 4 years ago but happened to turn on Hannity the other night. He compared news headlines on the days following the inauguration of Bush and Obama. If anyone has any doubt as to the radical left wing agenda of the media, it was there, on full display. /sigh/ I'm hoping someone can explain how it is that the media are so leftist in their approach. How did this happen? What brought it about? And, when did it begin? More importantly, what can be done to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction.
Any thoughts, ideas or suggestions would be interesting :-)
One of several reasons this makes me a bit huffy is that it's not at all evident (far from it!) that what an Evangelical such as Colson believes about justification, faith, and charity is what Luther believed. For example, Luther posited a form of "extrinsic justification," that is, justification is an external action, not an internal transformation. /i>
Bingo.
And rabid Protestant R. Scott Clark says:
Is it true that, 15 years after the first ECT document, that the evangelicals have given up on the Reformation doctrine of justification so completely that Colson and the reporter can simply assume that ECT is the status quo evangelical position on justification? Perhaps. Who knows? What matters to evangelicals, and this became clear in ECT 1, is the quality of one’s religious experience. As I noted several years ago, (you can also see it here) Edward Idris Cardinal Cassidy testified to a “born again” experience and that was enough for most of the evangelicals....
Colson claims that Rome views have changed since Trent. Nonsense. That’s just false. It’s been shown to be false repeatedly. Look at the Roman Catechism in justification. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly teaches justification through sanctification. That’s not the Protestant doctrine. That’s the Tridentine doctrine. Look at the footnotes of the Catholic Catechism on justification. What does one see cited as the authority? The Council of Trent, Session Six, 1547. Colson thinks things are changing in Rome, but as is typically the case for American evangelicals. They’re so desperate for influence that they see influence where it isn’t. They see “change” where it isn’t. Bill Bright used to see revivals all the time. He wanted to see them. They validated his program and organization. So it is with Colson and ECT. Evangelicals had better wake up. Seems to me that if one is to be ”evangelical” (as distinct from the social entity “an evangelical”) then the “evangel” is of the essence and justification by grace (an infused substance) and cooperation with grace (faith) is not the “evangel.” According to 1 Cor 15, the good news is Christ for us. According to Rom 6 and 8, the results of that good news is the Spirit’s work in us but let us not confuse the two. There’s too much at stake.
So, there's doctrinal rot in the frame of the evangelical house. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
A week or two I encountered a guy in an online forum, who thought evangelicals weren't protestant. I asked him about that, and he said that there wasn't any need to protest Rome anymore. I thought then (and still do) that that was profoundly ahistorical, as though your generic nondenom bible churches and big Churchmalls(R) pop up like mushrooms all on their own without any antecedents at all. Maybe, though, the guy was on to something.
They've forgotten what it's all about. If you want those evangelicals, you can have them. Just set up a "contemporary" service with a "praise band", and keep your "alter christus" priest folksy and informal, and they'll probably never know the difference.
OH, yeah, Colson says:
"One day, with very little warning, he"(Neuhaus) "converted to Catholicism."
Maybe he didn't know him as well as he thinks. What I've read is that Neuhaus' friends and associates were not at all surprised.
And speaking of evangelicalism, I just this morning got preached a storebought sermon. Not sure what to think about that. Does that happen in "papist" circles?
Pinging the GRPL and a couple other potentially interested parties
"The Reformation is dying daily in our day when the Ecumenical Movement, and other forces like unto it, wish to soften the antithesis with Rome, today. I want to assure you that it's not my pugnacious debating nature that makes me say we must exalt that antithesis and guard it. It's my love for the Lord Jesus Christ and the purity of His word.Colson and Co. are just plain wrong."Rome has not essentially changed. Rome declared that what it said at the time of the Reformation was infallible and could not change. Declared it to be irreformible truth. Rome has not changed and precious truths of God's word are still worth upholding even at the cost of unity even at the cost of being considered "troublemakers" in the religious world. We need to guard the antithesis against the destructive error of Rome."
Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen From a tape, THE REFORMATION, October 28, 1990.
(I may not qualify for this caucus since I'm loathe to use the term "evangelical" in reference to my views.)
A store-bought sermon? The pastor too tired to do his own? Or was this a really really good one that he found online? If he wants a fairly adequate one, he can use one of mine, found on the tagline below :>)
A store-bought sermon? The pastor too tired to do his own? Or was this a really really good one that he found online?
I honestly do not know. I thought the projected graphics looked kind of polished, and looked up the key phrase when I got home. Up it comes.
Lot's of law ("do this") about prayer, not much gospel. (For you-all from the other side of the Tiber, that's a Lutheran distinction.)
(I may not qualify for this caucus since I'm loathe to use the term "evangelical" in reference to my views.)
The church we're members of has "evangelical" in it's name, but yeah, I know the feeling.
Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black.
At your service.
I just finished a seminary course on Luther with a very respected Luther scholar, a Calvinist. Calvinists accept Luther’s understanding of justification, and then elaborate on it...as John Calvin’s theology was an all inclusive system, not simply soteriology, or Church reform—as it seems Luther’s was.
One of the difficulties with Luther is that his theology changed over time (as all honest and fallible theologians must) and he was not a systematician—and due to his opposition to medieval scholasticism, tended toward anti-rationalism, even while using rational arguments for his position....
In Reformed (Calvinist) circles Luther, and later Lutheranism, is criticized for minimizing the “3rd use of the law,” that is the moral/making-holy part of the moral law in the bible.
Moral commands in the bible (OT and NT) are seen to have 3 functions, namely:
1- Civil/social order (Ex: We know for sure stealing and murder are wrong—and social wrongs effecting everyone—hence we make laws against them).
2-A Judgemental/Disciplinarian/Schoolmaster function (as found especially in the book of Romans) where the perfection of the Moral Law shows us our utter bankruptcy before God, chasing us, as it were, to the merciful arms of our Savior, Jesus Christ... THIS WAS LUTHER’S HUGE EMPHASIS
3-Moral example (for believers only...AFTER going through #2...) by which grateful Christians, confident of the mercy of God recieved in Christ, learn to love God and others, by study, reflection and obedience to God’s moral law in the bible...the way of love.
Historically, Lutherans have rejected Calvinists as brothers for not recognizing the Real Presence of Jesus in the Lord’s Supper, and, Calvinists have criticized Lutherans for not emphasizing (and sometimes even ignoring) the 3rd Use of the Law.
Chuck Colson is a Reformed Baptist, as I understand it, which means he has Calvinist church roots. He is also, though a very smart man, without a seminary education...
This is why Colson has been criticized by the most conservative Calvinist theologians (Sproul and McArthur among others) for the ECT documents—as you had a popular layman—highly intelligent yes, but UNTRAINED—hammering out an agreement with well trained Roman Catholic theologians. The conservative Calvinists think that Colson compromised on Justification—not quite understanding the subtleties—and gave into Roman Catholic theology.
As a reading of the 3rd Use shows above, it does place more emphasis on good deeds of love—as evidence that one has previously had saving faith in Jesus Christ.
One phrase which Puritan Calvinists used which is helpful: “We are saved by faith alone yes, but Faith never comes to us alone without her friend Charity right behind her...”
This is part of the traditional Protestant understanding of Justification and Sanctification. Justification by Christ alone, by faith alone, through grace alone yes...but true justification ALWAYS is followed by Sanctification—that is the process of becoming actually holy—which is evidenced by a life of charity toward God and man.
The late medieval Roman Catholicism in which Luther was raised, assumed something called the "Pactum" by scholastic theologian Gregory Beil. The Pactum basically says on salvation, "Do your best, and God's grace will do the rest."
I firmly believe that this is precisely what a majority of evangelicals--and Roman Catholics--still believe at root.
Luther's torture was that he felt (rightly I think) that no matter how hard he tried, he could have always done better--hence, since he had never done his best, he was in no position to receive God's grace...
If God demands our best before grace is graciously given--than it is not gracious at all, thought Luther, in that if we are scrupulously honest, our good deeds done to receive the grace of salvation are done from selfish motives...and hence are no good deeds at all. Therefore, God won't give his grace...and all (or at least Luther, he thought himself) are doomed.
It was Luther's self-discovery (re-discovery) in scripture that faith itself was a gift...and therefore, God's mercy in Christ covers 100% of our salvation, not just a part of it--as he was taught in Beil's Pactum.
Most evangelicals believe faith is their own part in salvation...and NOT a gift of God. It is something they think they bring to the table of salvation. Hence faith itself becomes a work...and they are back to "doing their best (by doing faith) and God will do the rest."
In my professor's opinion, and I agree, if you believe that, you may as well become a Roman Catholic...as on the essential of faith, you agree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.